Start with Nothing

I was talking with someone today (who shall remain anonymous) when I stumbled upon a realisation. It's really simple, and quite obvious, now that I think about it. So I hope I don't end up looking like an idiot. It's also kind of hard to articulate, and it's easy to lose the thought.

While contemplating the initial reason for things, one must start with nothing. This is because, if you start with something, and that something has no cause for its existence, then that something is completely arbitrary. It could have not existed. The essence of everything is still nothingness, the thing that exists still sprung from nothingness. There are no 'laws of the universe' indicating that something is required to exist, because those laws would be something and so they cannot be the first thing.

One does not need any scientific knowledge to think about this. In fact, if you're using scientific knowledge to think about it, you're doing it wrong. You're trying to figure out why those scientific facts about the universe exist in the first place. You have to start with nothing.

So here's what I've concluded. Since you have to start with nothing, and only nothing comes from nothing, anything that does exist came about arbitrarily. I mean, everything that exists right now might have a cause, and that might have a cause, and that might have a cause, but eventually you arrive at something which just exists for no particular reason and has no cause. Whatever that first cause is, it was completely arbitrary.

EDIT:

1) Something exists.
2) Anything that exists has some first cause (the reasons for its existence can be traced back until you reach something that doesn't have a reason).
3) There are no logical problems with the concept of nothingness.
------
4) Therefore, a first cause exists for which there would be no logical problems with nothingness existing instead.
------
5) Therefore, a first cause exists which is not logically required to exist. It exists arbitrarily.

What if nothing has always existed and so something must also have always existed?

Nothing is, unfortunately, neither something nor nothing. The word nothing falsely conveys what nothing is. Nothing renders concepts like void and space obsolete. In nothing, infinite space exists and infinite creation within that space.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

What if nothing has always existed and so something must also have always existed?

---

What do you mean? I don't understand. Using 'always' might be a bad idea since it implies the existence of time, which is something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Nothing is, unfortunately, neither something nor nothing. The word nothing falsely conveys what nothing is. Nothing renders concepts like void and space obsolete. In nothing, infinite space exists and infinite creation within that space.

---

Why are you assuming that nothingness includes space? It doesn't.

'always' as in timelessly lol

I think that when you try making justifications like this that it's completely pointless. As far as I'm concerned that whether the universe always existed, or somehow came into being, it's bloody strange.

Besides, I could completely invert your logic by stating "if there was no universe at all and nothing existed then even nothingness would not exist, therefore something must exist". I do not see valid justification for your first premise.


Tangent: I find it really hard to mentally get to grips with the idea that the universe itself not existing at all. It's easy to imagine myself not existing for instance, or a bunch of empty space, but when you imagine that space and time don't exist, and nothing would ever happen ever then that's when things get very weird to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Besides, I could completely invert your logic by stating "if there was no universe at all and nothing existed then even nothingness would not exist, therefore something must exist". I do not see valid justification for your first premise

---

If nothing existed, then there would be nothing. Nothing isn't part of something, so nothing wouldn't not exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Photolysis

when you imagine that space and time don't exist, and nothing would ever happen ever then that's when things get very weird to me.

---

That's the entire point right there.
You literally cannot have nothing and then something come out of it.
What would cause something to come out of nothing? Something would have to.

I think you're (Dianeva) getting confused with laws and how they exist. They only exist in the mind. Maybe not, but that's just something I got from the OP.

"I mean, everything that exists right now might have a cause, and that might have a cause, and that might have a cause, but eventually you arrive at something which just exists for no particular reason and has no cause. Whatever that first cause is, it was completely arbitrary."
How? How can you have arbitrary or non-arbitrary from nothing?

I'm not talking about time - nothing existing one moment, then something existing the next. I'm talking about whatever exists, in the beginning.

Another way of thinking about what I'm saying is, to try to consider the first cause of everything. Eventually something has to have caused everything that exists. And what caused that cause? Nothing, by definition. So whatever it is, it exists or existed arbitrarily.

And I'm drunk so fuck you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dianeva

If nothing existed, then there would be nothing. Nothing isn't part of something, so nothing wouldn't not exist.

---

Except you're looking at this from the wrong perspective. Nothingness is the state of non-existence, but that itself requires a certain set of conditions. Just like you cannot have empty space without the existence of space itself.

If there is no universe, then there cannot be a state of nothingness. Even the concept of nothingness and existence cannot exist.

I honestly don't see why it can't. I don't see the problem with nothingness being the state of things.

Without a universe, states do not exist.

Right, no states, nothing.

EDIT: You can call nothingness a state, but it really isn't. When I say nothing, I just mean nothing.

The OP is a little confused - some contradictions here and there. Basically there is no 'pre-existence'. Existence is eternal and it must be eternal because it includes time. There is no before time nor after time because before and after implicate the presence of time. So there literally is no nothingness.
We don't just have to use the argument from time. It's more obvious if you argue from space (space and time are both measures of existence). There is no 'outside of existence'.
No before, no after, no outside - existence is eternal and all-encompassing.
Your childhood premise to start with nothing is mistaken. Well, it just doesn't make sense.

Let's sit back and wait for some proof eh? There's many possibilities at the moment, I'm sure someone will find out which is right.

Proof of nothing? Are you serious?

I think the moral of this thread is not to mistake the limits of our imaginations for a metaphysical necessity.

Causality is how we organize our experiences into a coherent whole, it is the very structure or form of these experiences. Saying "everything I experience has a cause" is one thing but to say that "therefore everything has a cause" is wading into the swamp of speculation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dianeva

One does not need any scientific knowledge to think about this. In fact, if you're using scientific knowledge to think about it, you're doing it wrong. You're trying to figure out why those scientific facts about the universe exist in the first place. You have to start with nothing.

---

To be honest we should beware of using our intuitions as a starting point (for this particular argument) as well as deriving vague conclusions from vague premises. In conclusion, we really just don't know (about the origins of the universe) but I think it would be beneficial to weigh the "evidence" derived from our intuitions against the evidence derived from the scientific method. Our intuitions have a long, hilarious history of being erroneous which is not to say that they are necessarily always wrong, but that we should tread carefully when we speculate about events beyond our experience. Kant said it better than me:

“Hence he inferred, that reason was altogether deluded with reference to this concept (causation), which she erroneously considered as one of her children, whereas in reality it was nothing but the bastard of imagination, impregnated by experience, which subsumed certain representations under the Law of Association, and mistook the subjective necessity of habit for an objective necessity arising from insight.”

Of course it is possible that I don't quite understand what you are getting at, if I misrepresented you position please correct me. Like Omis said using the word nothing is misleading, like I said we should tread carefully through this conversation, maybe starting by defining "nothing"? If we cannot come to a satisfactory definition of the terms we are throwing around we should beware of the conclusions drawn from them.

Another important factor that should be properly defined is time. Different people use different definitions of it. To some time is an arrow always moving in one direction along a timeline. To others it's simply a measurement of increments of movement between objects.

If nothing exists, and therefore there can be nothing moving to measure and no observer to make that measurement, then how could time be said to exist in any meaningful way?

(I've edited the OP, but if you've already read it you don't need to again. I just deleted a couple unnecessary paragraphs and added the deductive argument found at the bottom of this post.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JesterKK

Basically there is no 'pre-existence'. Existence is eternal and it must be eternal because it includes time. There is no before time nor after time because before and after implicate the presence of time. So there literally is no nothingness.

---

There is no assumption that time had something before it. If I used the word 'before', what I meant was the cause. The cause and effect might happen simultaneously. The effect might even be eternal. That doesn't defeat my argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JesterKK

The OP is a little confused - some contradictions here and there.

---

If there are more, please point them out.


I'll put the portion I'm adding now in blue text:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stormcrow

Causality is how we organize our experiences into a coherent whole, it is the very structure or form of these experiences. Saying "everything I experience has a cause" is one thing but to say that "therefore everything has a cause" is wading into the swamp of speculation.

---

My argument doesn't assume that everything has to have a cause.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stormcrow

To be honest we should beware of using our intuitions as a starting point (for this particular argument) as well as deriving vague conclusions from vague premises. In conclusion, we really just don't know (about the origins of the universe) but I think it would be beneficial to weigh the "evidence" derived from our intuitions against the evidence derived from the scientific method. Our intuitions have a long, hilarious history of being erroneous which is not to say that they are necessarily always wrong, but that we should tread carefully when we speculate about events beyond our experience.

---

I agree for many cases, but logic itself is applicable everywhere. These issues can be reasoned about, as long as one does not rely on knowledge about the universe gained through experience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

If nothing exists, and therefore there can be nothing moving to measure and no observer to make that measurement, then how could time be said to exist in any meaningful way?

---

I don't know why the absence of an observer to measure the nothingness would cause it to be impossible.

I think the mistake many people are making is assuming that nothingness still involves something, somehow. I suppose because there's a word used to describe it, and actual nothingness is difficult to imagine. When I say nothing, I mean the absence of anything.

I apologise that the OP was confusing. What I'm trying to say is true, I think. The reasoning is pretty solid. I suspect I haven't explained it correctly.

I define nothingness to be literally nothing. No space nor time. The absence of other things. Here's the argument in deductive form.


1) Something exists.
2) Anything that exists has some first cause (the reasons for its existence can be traced back until you reach something that doesn't have a reason).
3) There are no logical problems with the concept of nothingness.
------
4) Therefore, a first cause exists for which there would be no logical problems with nothingness existing instead.
------
5) Therefore, a first cause exists which is not logically required to exist. It exists arbitrarily.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dianeva

There is no assumption that time had something before it.

---

Oh, well in that case, I think my whole post is pretty irrelevant! *Insert derpface here*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dianeva

I don't know why the absence of an observer to measure the nothingness would cause it to be impossible.

---

Ok, forget the observer thing. I get another derpface for that one. I'm just basically asking - does time have any relevance or meaning if nothing can move (because nothing exists)?

This thread hurts my brain. :microwave:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dianeva

1) Something exists.
2) Anything that exists has some first cause (the reasons for its existence can be traced back until you reach something that doesn't have a reason).
3) There are no logical problems with the concept of nothingness.
------
4) Therefore, a first cause exists for which there would be no logical problems with nothingness existing instead.
------
5) Therefore, a first cause exists which is not logically required to exist. It exists arbitrarily.

---

4 and 5 are where you're going wrong. Which is basically your whole argument lol

How can something (like the universe) be caused by something in a sea of nothing?
This is why I said I think you're getting confused between what's in the mind and what is not in the mind.
What action, when nothing, would cause the universe?

I was beginning to think that microwave emoticon was useless, lol.

4 is the conclusion which logically follows from the premises 1-3, and 5 follows from 4. If you agree with 1-3, then you need to explain why you don't think 4 follows. In 4, I'm basically just combining 1-3 together into a single sentence.

I am not saying that the universe was caused by something in a sea of nothing. The universe, or whatever the 'first cause' is, doesn't have a cause. Are you disagreeing with premise 2?

This all seems to be solved if there was no first cause to the universe. Nothing only exists relative to the concept of something and vice versa, so can't they only exist together as necessary attributes of existence?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dianeva

I was beginning to think that microwave emoticon was useless, lol.

4 is the conclusion which logically follows from the premises 1-3, and 5 follows from 4. If you agree with 1-3, then you need to explain why you don't think 4 follows. In 4, I'm basically just combining 1-3 together into a single sentence.

I am not saying that the universe was caused by something in a sea of nothing. The universe, or whatever the 'first cause' is, doesn't have a cause. Are you disagreeing with premise 2?

---

I'm disagreeing with the premise that there was nothing before there was something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

What action, when nothing, would cause the universe?

---

It would have to be something not bound by the laws of our universe.

Something that our minds cannot even comprehend..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seroquel

It would have to be something not bound by the laws of our universe.

Something that our minds cannot even comprehend..

---

Like for instance the collapse of another universe, as proposed by (some theory or other, I don't know which). And that brings up this question - if the Big Bang was caused by the collapse of another universe, then would that be considered arbitrary or caused? I suppose it depends on which model of the universe is being postulated for the exercise.

That or an endless list of creators. Or our universe always existed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seroquel

It would have to be something not bound by the laws of our universe.

Something that our minds cannot even comprehend..

---

Yep, that's my conclusion too. OR at least cannot comprehend given the laws of our universe. Maybe if we learned the laws of our "mother" universe, but of course I don't know since I don't know what they could be.

This has actually been backed up by some evidence; that our universe could have spawned from a black hole, spewed out of another universe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Like for instance the collapse of another universe, as proposed by (some theory or other, I don't know which). And that brings up this question - if the Big Bang was caused by the collapse of another universe, then would that be considered arbitrary or caused? I suppose it depends on which model of the universe is being postulated for the exercise.

---

The universe is then just redefined as a chain of 'universes' (for lack of a better name) 'collapsing' and starting new ones with a 'big bang'. The question is then is this universe caused?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dianeva

My argument doesn't assume that everything has to have a cause.

---

Quote:

---

2) Anything that exists has some first cause (the reasons for its existence can be traced back until you reach something that doesn't have a reason).

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dianeva

I agree for many cases, but logic itself is applicable everywhere. These issues can be reasoned about, as long as one does not rely on knowledge about the universe gained through experience.

---

Can logic justify itself? Can it tell whether or not I should eat a carrot or an apple? It is a tool that has applicability to many areas of inquiry but not all. Which is not to say that it is useless but it is limited, which is not news. I just wanted to point out the fallacy of mistaking our subjective intuitions for a universal law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dianeva

1) Something exists.
2) Anything that exists has some first cause (the reasons for its existence can be traced back until you reach something that doesn't have a reason).
3) There are no logical problems with the concept of nothingness.
------
4) Therefore, a first cause exists for which there would be no logical problems with nothingness existing instead.
------
5) Therefore, a first cause exists which is not logically required to exist. It exists arbitrarily.

---

We run into problems when we structure deductive arguments with inductive premises like P2. P3 is just irksome (it does not deductively follow from the other premises) even the conception of nothingness is something… how can you structure a logical argument assuming the existence of non-existence? Logic tells us what is the case or what is not the case but in order to inference upon the latter it must examine the former.

This is why I wanted to veer the argument towards defining our terms because I don’t think we all realize the semantic confusion that this conversation always brings to the table. No offense intended but I believe you are falling into the language traps that you are accusing others of. Please don’t say fuck you to me, I assume that by starting this thread you had to presuppose people would pick holes in it.

I’m glad you defined nothingness as essentially non-being, something (see what I mean it is very hard to discuss this without falling into these traps) essentially void of attribute. There are “no logical problems with the conception of nothing” because logic simply does not apply to it (see again) in the first place.

Take the proposition “nothing exists” we know this to be necessarily false because the proposition contradicts itself. The validity of your whole argument rests on the existence of nonexistence. When you assert that “There are no logical problems with the concept of nothingness” you are affirming the existence of something that is logically valid. The proposition is necessarily contradictory. The very conception of “nothing” does not refer to anything. Period. We can’t form logical arguments that presuppose this non-existence.

We cannot meaningful talk about nothingness. I realize you are more interested in the metaphysical aspect of nothing but I think it is equally important to analyze the language in which these metaphysical propositions are expressed. Like I said before if we structure an argument using ambiguous premises then it deductively follows that the argument is false. It is a castle built on sand.

I guess what I mean is that we should proceed with this conversation very carefully and rigorously to avoid linguistic confusions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

This all seems to be solved if there was no first cause to the universe. Nothing only exists relative to the concept of something and vice versa, so can't they only exist together as necessary attributes of existence?

---

That's like saying that darkness only exists relative to the concept of light, so a world without light is impossible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

I'm disagreeing with the premise that there was nothing before there was something.

---

That isn't a premise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stormcrow

Can logic justify itself? Can it tell whether or not I should eat a carrot or an apple? It is a tool that has applicability to many areas of inquiry but not all. Which is not to say that it is useless but it is limited, which is not news.

---

Logic cannot do those things, but that is irrelevant. I didn't mean it can be applied to solve any situation. What I meant was that there's no possible reality in which logic can fail, in which A does not equal A.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stormcrow

We run into problems when we structure deductive arguments with inductive premises like P2. P3 is just irksome (it does not deductively follow from the other premises)

---

Premises aren't supposed to follow from other premises. Conclusions are supposed to follow from premises. The premises themselves don't even have to be related. The only inductive premise is P1. P2 is just a logical fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stormcrow

This is why I wanted to veer the argument towards defining our terms because I don’t think we all realize the semantic confusion that this conversation always brings to the table. No offense intended but I believe you are falling into the language traps that you are accusing others of.

---

Yes, I agree defining terms is important and was aware of it in the first post. I decided to define nothingness before even reading your request that I do. I don't think I'm falling into language traps, it's pretty clear to me what I mean by nothingness. I'm surprised there's so much confusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stormcrow

Please don’t say fuck you to me, I assume that by starting this thread you had to presuppose people would pick holes in it.

---

I didn't say fuck you to you, that was to tommo, and I was completely joking about it. (I said it because he responded to my argument when he knew I was drunk and that I wouldn't be able to defend myself properly).

So the rest of your problem with my argument is about the language used. You don't think that it's possible to talk about these issues because the 'nothing'/'something' terms are too confusing. Statements like "nothing exists" seem to contradict themselves, but conceptually they don't actually contradict themselves, right?

But as long as the person reading the argument realises what I mean by nothing, there shouldn't be a problem. It's like infinity. No one can grasp the concept of infinity, but we can still use it in mathematical calculations and to come to valid conclusions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dianeva

That's like saying that darkness only exists relative to the concept of light, so a world without light is impossible

---

Well yeah, in multiple senses. Would darkness and color exist without eyes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

Well yeah, in multiple senses. Would darkness and color exist without eyes?

---

The lack of light would exist without eyes, in a physical sense. The sensation of darkness wouldn't, but I'm not talking about the sensation.

Well 'the lack of light' only exists relative to light.

Hence, nothing (the lack of something) only exists relative to something.

That's true for the purpose of conceptualizing darkness and nothingness. If we'd never experienced light, then we wouldn't really be able to conceptualize darkness. If we'd only experienced one color, we wouldn't have the concept of color. But the important thing is that, physically, it is possible for the world to not have any light. Whether or not we'd be capable of realizing that we're in darkness would be irrelevant.

I don't think it would be possible, but say it is, 'a universe with no light' is still a comparison to our universe with light.

I gave my response to that in my last post. I don't know how to explain it any more clearly.

I think your blending the actual hypothetical universe with our contemplation of it in this universe. In this hypothetical universe with no light, darkness would not exist, it only exists to us because we experience light and it's absence. We can look at this hypothetical universe and say it's in darkness, but that's only relative to the light in our universe. To someone living in that universe, darkness wouldn't exist, it would just be space or something. Contemplating a universe without it's electromagnetic effects is too much for me anyway lol

^ This argument is invalid. There are creatures in this universe who don't have eyes - to them the concept of darkness does not exist. Yet there is both light and darkness, whether they know about it or not. So the better conclusion is to say that in this hypothetical universe nothing would KNOW the CONCEPT of darkness - yet darkness would still exist. If you or I were able to go there we'd be aware of the darkness.

What you're saying suggests that nothing can exist unless someone or something is aware of its existence. You're implying that a tree that falls truly makes no sound unless something with ears is there to hear it.

The creatures in this universe who don't see light are just ignorant of it, this is not the same as a totally separate and hypothetical universe where there is no light, we wouldn't be able to go there. Your doing the same thing here, your blending the separate realities. We would only call the hypothetical universe dark because we're comparing it to light. In a totally separate reality without light, where this universe has no connection, it would not be "dark", as that implies the absents of something that doesn't exist in that reality, it would just be god knows what... I highly doubt such a universe would even be possible to talk about. Anyway, I wish I didn't feed into the whole alternate universe thing because the fact is we can only think/imagine with content that we experience in this universe, so it's always going to be relative to this universe. This is why "darkness" or "a world without light" has no independent meaning but with what we already experience, light. I think it's more necessarily empirical than you think.

Ok, I do see where you're coming from.

In a universe where no light at all exists - there's no point at all in defining the absence of it. To do so would require the knowledge of light. This round goes to you my friend.

jeez, I'm sorry for all the ranting, I really should be studying lol

I explained why our inability to conceptualize the darkness is irrelevant but you're ignoring that point completely. Yes, I agree that we'd have no concept of darkness nor of light. We wouldn't need a word to define it. But that doesn't matter. It would still be a fact that there are no electromagnetic light waves. Do you agree with that? That's all I'm saying.

Yes, but only to us, in this universe. That would not mean anything in a reality where electromagnetic waves do not exist. It would be like us saying that it's a significant fact that flying purple elephants don't exist, why should we consider they are a reality in some other universe? should we call our universe nonpurpleelephantish?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dianeva

I explained why our inability to conceptualize the darkness is irrelevant but you're ignoring that point completely. Yes, I agree that we'd have no concept of darkness nor of light. We wouldn't need a word to define it. But that doesn't matter. It would still be a fact that there are no electromagnetic light waves. Do you agree with that? That's all I'm saying.

---

Yes, there would be no light - that statement is absolutely true. But darkness is simply a quality defined entirely by the absence of light. Just as cold is a negative quality describing heat. Heat and light are actually positive states. Cold and dark are nothing - only negative descriptors of those actual states. They are only absences.

Flying purple elephants don't exist.
I don't see the problem.

The electromagnetic waves would not exist. That's all I'm saying. Everything after the 'but' is irrelevant, since I'm not talking about our ability to conceptualize it. I'm wondering how many more times I'll have to say that, I'm getting sick of repeating it and then being straw-manned with the same arguments. Are people straw-manning me to be funny now or is what I'm saying really so hard to grasp?

Yes, they don't exist - but does their lack of existence exist, as a quantifiable thing?

The point is that darkness is not an existence, it is simply the lack of existence of light.

It doesn't matter if it's quantifiable or not. It doesn't matter if darkness is not 'an existence', whatever that means. As long as the state of there being no electromagnetic light waves is possible, the premise is valid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dianeva

Logic cannot do those things, but that is irrelevant. I didn't mean it can be applied to solve any situation. What I meant was that there's no possible reality in which logic can fail, in which A does not equal A.

---

When you said anywhere I thought you meant anywhere. Can the law of non-contradiction justify itself? It is the basic axiom of arithmetic (well one of them is a+0=a which is pretty similar) and logic but can it justify itself without resulting in a contradiction or having to create more axioms?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dianeva

Premises aren't supposed to follow from other premises. Conclusions are supposed to follow from premises. The premises themselves don't even have to be related. The only inductive premise is P1. P2 is just a logical fact.

---

Oh ok. I misunderstood the structure of the syllogism; I just recognized the line separating the premises and conclusion (I usually use P1 and C to avoid confusion). P2 is a logical fact? The proposition “everything has a cause” can only be inferred by empirical observation not pure reason, remember the Hume discussion? However experience cannot justify causality either. If the proposition “Anything that exists has some first cause” is valid, then that cause would be something that existed to cause “anything” and would therefore be included in the set of “things that exist and are therefore caused”. The argument is subject to a regress.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dianeva

Yes, I agree defining terms is important and was aware of it in the first post. I decided to define nothingness before even reading your request that I do. I don't think I'm falling into language traps, it's pretty clear to me what I mean by nothingness. I'm surprised there's so much confusion.

---

I have been previously infatuated with the concept of nothingness as well, I understand what you mean. If you are surprised there is so much confusion then perhaps we are on completely different pages at this point in the argument. What I mean is that when we talk about “nothing” we inescapably (a product of how our language works) conceive it as something; non-being, the state of non-affairs. It is simply inescapable.

I get very on edge when the definition of a word (nothing) includes itself in its definition (no thing). That raises a couple flags when we are trying to have a logical argument especially when using an ambiguous term like nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dianeva

I didn't say fuck you to you, that was to tommo, and I was completely joking about it. (I said it because he responded to my argument when he knew I was drunk and that I wouldn't be able to defend myself properly).

So the rest of your problem with my argument is about the language used. You don't think that it's possible to talk about these issues because the 'nothing'/'something' terms are too confusing. Statements like "nothing exists" seem to contradict themselves, but conceptually they don't actually contradict themselves, right?

But as long as the person reading the argument realizes what I mean by nothing, there shouldn't be a problem. It's like infinity. No one can grasp the concept of infinity, but we can still use it in mathematical calculations and to come to valid conclusions.

---

Linguistically, nothing refers (symbolically) to the state of non-affairs or non-existence. Language by its very nature bewitches us into speaking about nothing in a manner that makes it something. A state of non-affairs is something; an empty set is still a set. Language, as well as formal logic tells us “what is the case”. In this way the word nothing refers to no thing, it is an empty concept, pun intended.

Saying “nothing exists” results in a contradiction. Saying “nothing does not exist” is a tautology. The subject and the predicate refer to the same thing…which is nothing. The point is that we cannot meaningfully talk about nothing. To frank it is meaningless (semantically). This does not mean “nothing” does not exist (see, again we cant escape it) but that we just cannot meaningful talk about it, and inferences drawn from the existence or non-existence of nothing are always necessarily dubious to put it lightly.

If nothing existed this sentence would make sense.

Even if we say “talking about nothing is meaningless” we are presupposing that the predicate is referring to something (the subject ie what is the case)…which is nothing.

I’m not saying lets not talk about this, I am greatly enjoying the conversation it’s a great thread but I only originally wanted to bring to the table that we might want to tread carefully when talking about this kind of metaphysics. Scratch that, all metaphysics. Also And I resent the contention that the concept of nothingness is easy to grasp…its an abstraction (IMO that’s all it is) like infinity, meaning that it is not self-evident or verifiable. That’s just my opinion.

And I didn't think you said fuck you to me, I just didn't want to go down that road, in light of me being somewhat critical of your argument.

A different way to look at it - another word for nothing is non-existence. Can non-existence be said to exist?

Thats what I said!:madtongue:

Nu-unh!!

(Lol, ok, so I was simplifying your wall of text.. )

Ya I need to add brevity to my vocabulary. I just wanted to be rigorous so there was no room for confusion.

Try again buddy - brevity is not a state, it's simply defined entirely by the absence of its opposite...

Ok wait - I'm trying too hard now! :boggle:

No, it's cool though - it's a sort of good cop / bad cop approach. You lay down the smart stuff, and I'll make the tl;dr version.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stormcrow

Can the law of non-contradiction justify itself? It is the basic axiom of arithmetic (well one of them is a+0=a which is pretty similar) and logic but can it justify itself without resulting in a contradiction or having to create more axioms?

---

I agree that problems arise when you try to justify logic with logic. That might pose a problem to my argument, but no more than it does to any other argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stormcrow

P2 is a logical fact? The proposition “everything has a cause” can only be inferred by empirical observation not pure reason, remember the Hume discussion? However experience cannot justify causality either. If the proposition “Anything that exists has some first cause” is valid, then that cause would be something that existed to cause “anything” and would therefore be included in the set of “things that exist and are therefore caused”. The argument is subject to a regress.

---

I'll further explain P2. The premise isn't that "everything has a cause". In fact what I'm saying is in some sense the opposite. I am saying that you can trace every cause back to something that was uncaused. That has to be true. The only other conceivable option is an infinite regression of causes. But even then, that infinite sequence of causes would be something that exists and is uncaused.

I don't think it's so difficult to conceptualize that we can't meaningfully talk about it. If I can think about it, we should be able to talk about it. But I agree that we have to be careful.

I've been getting frustrated in the last page or so and am playing my part in arguing, but I'm not "mad at you" or anything. I was getting 'irritated' in the context of the argument at Wayfaerer, tommo and Darkmatters too, and I think you four happen to be my favourite people on this site... which now that I think about it is kind of an odd coincidence.

Well, I'll be the first to admit, I'm way over my head in this discussion - I know nothing about formal logic. I just thought it was an interesting discussion. I guess I'm providing the 'man in the street' viewpoint. But the last thing I want to do is piss you off, especially over a subject where I hardly know what I'm talking about!! I should leave this one to those who are well-versed in formal logic. Besides, I gotta get to bed!! Nighty-nite!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Yes, they don't exist - but does their lack of existence exist, as a quantifiable thing?

The point is that darkness is not an existence, it is simply the lack of existence of light.

---

This sort of what I was driving at earlier with my point. What we term existence and non-existence actually comes with a lot of excess baggage, and this baggage simply isn't there without a universe.

Imagine what the world would look like with no light. To our eyes, it would appear black. Now try to imagine what it would look like if there were no such thing as colour (what we call black is in fact a colour!) Tricky.

No you don't. You stated it yourself. Everything has a cause.

Circles are neat, because they don't really start or end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dianeva

There is no assumption that time had something before it. If I used the word 'before', what I meant was the cause. The cause and effect might happen simultaneously. The effect might even be eternal. That doesn't defeat my argument.

---

That's entirely distorting the concept of cause and effect. Cause and effect cannot happen simultaneously by definition. Einstein even assumed that causation could not be violated in his special relativity - causes must come before effects in all cases.

Yes existence is arbitrary and it must be arbitrary because it cannot be logically caused, but is that really something people didn't already know? The argument might fall down when it comes to the second point: 'anything has a cause'. You can't say that and then go onto say it can be traced back to something which doesn't have a cause/to something which doesn't exist. If it is the case that everything has a cause, then there is no 'first' cause, there can only be infinite regression. The very assertion that nothingness/non-existence can exist is a clear contradiction.

My point is that assuming things exist and those things require causes, there must be infinite regression - no first, no before. To talk about what comes last or after we have to assume everything has an effect which is another argument for another day I guess.

It is similar to the idea that stuff can't come out of nothing. People say that because stuff can not be created or destoryed, the universe must have always existed. However, there are theories that the net energy of the universe is 0. So that the universe is basically made of nothing, that was split apart into positive and negative energies. So if you follow that, all the universe can come from nothing, but doesn't violate any rules of physics. Nothing was created or destoryed in the creation of the universe, it only changed forms.

It could be that the first cause is that nothing is fundmentally unstable, because absolute nothing shouldn't exist. And because of that events took place that eventually created the universe. You could say that there must be a reason 'nothing' is unstable and thus a cause for it, but since you are talking about something that can't exist from our view point you might never get an answer.

Ok, I started out basically agreeing with Dianeva, then Wayfarer convinced me to switch sides. But now I'm not sure again.

Running through it again and again, I see that our language is completely incapable of expressing the concepts needed. But is it just the language, or are we completely incapable of really understanding no universe? If you think of blackness, that still implies there's space to be black. There wouldn't even be space, or time - so there would be nothing to see. That is basically impossible to conceive of. The closest I can get is to imagine the big bang running in fast revers until everything collapses into a single point and then that disappears, but then I'm left, a point of awareness, looking at the space where it just disappeared. So that's no good - it still implies empty space. I could not exist to witness anything - I'd have to get sucked in and disappear with everything else, so what then is there for me to imagine?

So I'll simply admit that I at least am incapable of comprehending it sufficiently to make any kind of remotely meaningful statement about it.

Oh, and:

:microwave:

If you could see it, it probably would be blackness because there would be no visible light to see. Though like you said you couldn't ever actually be alive to see it. So for simplicty sake, picturing it as complete blackness works just fine.

People express problems with my argument, I explain why they're wrong, and then someone else (sometimes the same person) comes back with the exactly same problem, and I have to explain it again. If you get my explanation and tell me what's wrong with it, that's one thing, but it's like my explanation is completely ignored. So I don't know why I'm bothering explaining now, when it's probably just going to happen again a few posts later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JesterKK

That's entirely distorting the concept of cause and effect. Cause and effect cannot happen simultaneously by definition.

---

What about "as a logical consequence of"? An effect can't come before a cause while dealing outside of time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JesterKK

Yes existence is arbitrary and it must be arbitrary because it cannot be logically caused, but is that really something people didn't already know?

---

As I said in the OP, I did suspect it was pretty obvious. It was just something I'd never consciously realised before, so I thought it might be worth bringing up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JesterKK

The argument might fall down when it comes to the second point: 'anything has a cause'. You can't say that and then go onto say it can be traced back to something which doesn't have a cause/to something which doesn't exist. If it is the case that everything has a cause, then there is no 'first' cause, there can only be infinite regression.

---

Show me exactly where I said that everything has a cause. Can't find it? Didn't think so...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JesterKK

The very assertion that nothingness/non-existence can exist is a clear contradiction.

---

No, it isn't. As I brought up before, it only seems to be because of our language. Actual non-existence is entirely possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

It is similar to the idea that stuff can't come out of nothing. People say that because stuff can not be created or destoryed, the universe must have always existed. However, there are theories that the net energy of the universe is 0. So that the universe is basically made of nothing, that was split apart into positive and negative energies. So if you follow that, all the universe can come from nothing, but doesn't violate any rules of physics. Nothing was created or destoryed in the creation of the universe, it only changed forms.

It could be that the first cause is that nothing is fundmentally unstable, because absolute nothing shouldn't exist. And because of that events took place that eventually created the universe. You could say that there must be a reason 'nothing' is unstable and thus a cause for it, but since you are talking about something that can't exist from our view point you might never get an answer.

---

The problem I have with this post is that you seem to be assuming that the laws of physics and other 'rules' already apply 'before' (bad term to use) any existence happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dianeva

Show me exactly where I said that everything has a cause. Can't find it? Didn't think so...

---

http://static.tumblr.com/qzx0dsx/9X7lurx2g/snap.gif

That isn't true. The rules we have may or may not have have existed then, or it might not even matter because there was nothing. The important thing is that is is possible, because at the moment the universe, time, and the laws of the universe was created everything followed them.

It is pretty safe to say the laws of physics, and things like time exist and always had to exist within our universe. Though when you speak about stuff outside of our universe there is no current way to know if that is true or not. And there are theories stating that their could be other universes, and they might follow different rules of physics.

It is possible there could be places that exist outside time, or places where time is going backwards or something crazy like that. If time runs backwards then it is possible that time could be infinite in that place. However in our universe things point to a beginning and time flowing forward in one direction. So at least in our universe there doesn't seem to be any reason to believe time is infinite going backwards.

The dream theory explains this very well, basically with the world being a dream, when you arrive at nothing, you dont necessarily get nothing but that the dream is in "off" mode, when we get creation, that is its "on" mode, in this theory, the world could have turned "on" instantly without any evolution.

Dianeva, by asserting "2) Anything that exists has some first cause," you are asserting that everything that exists has a cause. Anything could literally be any single thing, but in order for it to be a thing in the first place it has to exist. And, because everything that exists... exists, everything has a cause (according to you).

I also have trouble with this statement in regards to your conclusions,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dianeva

What do you mean? I don't understand. Using 'always' might be a bad idea since it implies the existence of time, which is something.

---

Time does indicate the presence of something, so it would be impossible in a non-existent universe in which nothing exists. In order for something to have sprung from this nothing and to follow your rule that anything (and everything) has a cause, a cause would have to have come about. This predicates the existence of time which, then predicates existence itself. Therefore, the "concept" of nothingness (in your head) can exist (P3 should be clarified, btw), but if nothing exists it's as simple as that. This hypothetical universe in which some how nothing exists breaks down as soon as you assert that somehow it can. P4 breaks down as well the moment you treat the concept of nothingness as the proof that the absence of existence somehow exists or can exist. Stormcrow, I feel, should have been more assertive with his point. Language isn't the issue here. The labeling of nothing as something was intentional because you cannot discuss true non-existence because of the very nature of its concept. There is no thing that can be discussed. You could try, but you would be discussing nothing.

Your last paragraph in the OP,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dianeva

So here's what I've concluded. Since you have to start with nothing, and only nothing comes from nothing, anything that does exist came about arbitrarily. I mean, everything that exists right now might have a cause, and that might have a cause, and that might have a cause, but eventually you arrive at something which just exists for no particular reason and has no cause. Whatever that first cause is, it was completely arbitrary.

---

basically states what is already taught in high school science class: something cannot arise out of nothing. I agree with you there, although not with the part about having to start with nothing. There is no effect without a cause, and no cause without an effect. Your second to last and very last sentences do not make sense either. If it exists, according to you, it has a cause. Therefore you would never run into anything that didn't have a cause. Assuming you somehow did, this lack of preceding action or acting forces in no way indicates to me how arbitrary the cause of something is, they don't seem related. Whether or not it was random depends entirely on your interpretation of the events and whether or not you believe everything happens by chance or even if chance is an illusion.

@Alric
Again, you're assuming that rules exist when you shouldn't be. I have the same response to this as I did to your other post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elucid

The dream theory explains this very well, basically with the world being a dream, when you arrive at nothing, you dont necessarily get nothing but that the dream is in "off" mode, when we get creation, that is its "on" mode, in this theory, the world could have turned "on" instantly without any evolution.

---

I don't understand. If you want to explain what you're trying to say, please define your terms (evolution, dream, 'on mode', 'off mode') and use better punctuation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snoop

Dianeva, by asserting "2) Anything that exists has some first cause," you are asserting that everything that exists has a cause.
...
In order for something to have sprung from this nothing and to follow your rule that anything (and everything) has a cause, a cause would have to have come about.

---

By 'first cause', I mean something that was uncaused. The first cause is something that exists but doesn't have a cause.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snoop

Therefore, the "concept" of nothingness (in your head) can exist (P3 should be clarified, btw), but if nothing exists it's as simple as that. This hypothetical universe in which some how nothing exists breaks down as soon as you assert that somehow it can.

---

Why does it break down? I might just not be understanding. Asserting that 'nothingness' somehow can exist doesn't break down the fact that the 'nothingness' is hypothetically possible. It only shows that it's merely hypothetical and not actually the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snoop

P4 breaks down as well the moment you treat the concept of nothingness as the proof that the absence of existence somehow exists or can exist. Stormcrow, I feel, should have been more assertive with his point. Language isn't the issue here. The labeling of nothing as something was intentional because you cannot discuss true non-existence because of the very nature of its concept. There is no thing that can be discussed. You could try, but you would be discussing nothing.

---

P4 is really a conclusion. Perhaps I should have labeled it differently. If P1, P2 or P3 break down, then yes, P4 breaks down. If the premises are true though, P4 must be true, since it's a logical consequence of P1-3.

Do you think that there's a logical problem with the concept of nothingness? I get the idea that you do, but don't understand why. I'm not using the concept of nothingness as proof that the absence of existence can exist. I'm merely saying that there are no logical problems with nothingness. It seems the argument that keeps coming up is that the idea of 'nothingness' still involves something, and as a result, actual 'nothingness' is impossible. But I think this is only a result of the language used. It still seems to me that people are arguing that a dark room isn't dark because you need some light to compare to the darkness. That just isn't true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snoop

Your last paragraph in the OP, basically states what is already taught in high school science class: something cannot arise out of nothing. I agree with you there, although not with the part about having to start with nothing.

---

What I meant was that something cannot arise as an effect of nothing. But it can just be, and not have any cause, and in this sense something can arise out of nothing. In our universe, where we witness cause and effect, it seems to be the case that causes always have effects. But there isn't actually any logical problem with considering that something has always just existed, and is uncaused.

I'll clarify what I mean by 'start with nothing'. I do not mean that, at any time, there was really 'nothing'. Time is something, so that wouldn't make sense. Since we're dealing outside of time, that state of 'nothingness' never actually was. I'm only using the term as a sort of back-drop. Everything that isn't 'nothing' seems to require an explanation - why isn't it nothingness instead? How did it come about? It seems that nothingness should be the natural state of things, since everything else seems to require a cause. So I'm just saying that, all that stuff that seems to require explanation, actually doesn't require any, because it just came about arbitrarily.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snoop

Assuming you somehow did, this lack of preceding action or acting forces in no way indicates to me how arbitrary the cause of something is, they don't seem related. Whether or not it was random depends entirely on your interpretation of the events and whether or not you believe everything happens by chance or even if chance is an illusion.

---

What else could it be but arbitrary? If there is absolutely no reason for something to come about, not even any reason it should likely come about, yet it comes about, doesn't that mean it was arbitrary? That something else, with the same probability of happening, could have come about instead?

This used to be a big question for me too, but since then I think I answered it in a satisfactory way. I haven't explained it, but I have understood why we have no reason to think it's strange and why there's no reason we should be able to explain it.

As far as I can tell most of this thread has essentially been meaningless nonsense, based on a misunderstanding (loosely an overestimation) of what words and knowledge are. Word games, in every sense.

Knowledge is in fact just the recognition of a local pattern, and that is all it can ever be.

Time and again, knowledge that was thought to be universal and 'a priori' has been shown to be wrong; even extremely fundamental knowledge. Take space, for example. Every time we, in our daily lives, look at a scene, it is rectilinear, as far as our senses can tell; we can conceptualise a regular kind of rectangular grid permeating everything. This conceptual scheme (of the pattern) thus becomes ingrained in our brains, and for most of human history, this idea of space has been professed to be indubitable, and 'intuitively obvious'. But it turns out to not even be true; not anywhere. It's a very good approximation for small scales, but on large scales space is curved, and our idea of a rectilinear grid makes no sense.

Other major examples include absolute space and time, our entire conception of solid objects (read about how electrons behave around atomic nuclei, for instance), and even (importantly to this thread) our idea of causality. Exploration of the subatomic world has shown us that reality is completely detached from the way we think it works. Particles do not behave as billiard balls flying around; they behave as waves of probability, spreading out until they are observed, at which point they appear in a given region with the probability that the wave assigns to that region. If you think this is amenable to any conception of causality, you are just wrong. Only on a scale above atoms do all these probabilities merge into something that resembles determinism.

Everything we know is just a local pattern. Your brain is just a pattern recognising machine. You think 'something can't come from nothing'? Why not? We don't have any access to 'general principles'; the entire idea of a general principle is flawed. Maybe it can, maybe it can't. We know that, on the scale that we observe, things do not happen without cause. But we have no right to say that this can't happen to something so vastly outside of human experience as the entire universe or its exotic origin, any more than we can say the universe is rectilinear, or indeed that we can say that objects smaller than we can see will appear here rather than there as a result of some 'cause'.

You are looking for some a priori explanation based on general principles, but there is no such thing. The case of the origin of the universe is no different a question in this sense than any other question you ask. All an explanation ever does is reduce a pattern into more common patterns. No matter how far you take this process, your explanation will always rest on an assertion, and the source of this assertion will be observation. Try to explain why it rains. It rains because water moisture condenses into clouds. Why? Because water molecules have regions of negative and positive charge which attract each other. Why? The laws of electromagnetism. Why?

At every stage all you have is an assertion. You're expecting this process to somehow end up with something that explains itself, but it is obvious that this will never occur.

That's true in many cases of trying to explain things. But, as far as I can tell, my argument doesn't assume any knowledge gained a posteriori. What assumption am I making that I shouldn't be?

It's just a word game. You think you have a handle on gigantic universal a priori concepts like 'logic', 'arbitrary', and 'nothing', but nobody does. These are just semantics to me; I don't even see what your conclusion is supposed to mean, really. You say that 'only nothing can come from nothing', and then you say that 'the first cause was arbitrary'. So you're saying the first cause did come from nothing..? Or what? What does arbitrary mean?

We don't even know if the concept of 'nothing' makes sense. How do you define it; or if it's an atomic word, how did you learn what it meant? Certainly we don't have any intuitive grasp on its behaviour, and we can't make assertions like 'nothing begets nothing', if that even means anything.

I think maybe you are missing my main message... I was trying in general to form a picture of knowledge and why discussions like these don't even have any meaning, or at least validity.

I actually do think I have a handle on the concepts. None of those definitions are difficult to grasp. I don't know why you think I or anyone else shouldn't have a handle on them.

Logic - deductive reasoning.
Arbitrary - it happened for no reason.
Nothing - the absence of anything including space, time, or any rules.

What I'm concluding is simple really. I'll try to explain it more concisely, in a different way.

P1) For anything that exists, there are two options: either it has a cause, or it doesn't. (You agree with that, right? "A or not A" is a tautology.)
P2) If something doesn't have a cause, then it happened for no reason (arbitrarily).
P3) If there were an infinite series of causes, then that infinite series would be a thing that exists and is uncaused.
C1) Therefore, the causes of everything that exists now can be traced back to something that doesn't have a cause. I'm calling that thing that you can trace it back to the 'first cause'. So the final conclusion is basically there there is a first cause.

You need to be careful; 'cause' is a homonym meaning two things: a temporal reason, and any general reason.

It makes no sense to say cause (in the sense of the temporal cause) of an infinite series of (temporal) causes.

I do not mean temporal. Just a general reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dianeva

C1) Therefore, the causes of everything that exists now can be traced back to something that doesn't have a cause. I'm calling that thing that you can trace it back to the 'first cause'. So the final conclusion is basically there there is a first cause.

---

Wouldn't it make more sense to conclude that there was no first cause from this?

What would be the other possibility, if not a first cause?

eternal recycling idk lol

grrr, I addressed that.

That something eternal can have a first cause?

The possibility of an infinite regression of causes. I basically said that that infinite series would still be a 'something', and where did that come from? Then the series itself would be the first cause.

I'm not talking about an infinite regression of causes, just one eternal structure. You said it yourself, you eventually end up with something that has no cause, that is eternal, I'm wondering why you choose to call this 'the first cause' instead of just saying there is no cause in essence. I really don't think this matters, it really is just word games like Xei mentioned, but I think it's fun anyway lol

You don't have to call it the 'first cause'. What I was saying is that there is no cause. I don't care what terms are used.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Knowledge is in fact just the recognition of a local pattern, and that is all it can ever be.

---

What does even that mean? Knowledge ultimately rests with truth itself; that is the a priori that cannot be wronged. That is a step further than "recognition".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dianeva

P1) For anything that exists, there are two options: either it has a cause, or it doesn't. (You agree with that, right? "A or not A" is a tautology.)
P2) If something doesn't have a cause, then it happened for no reason (arbitrarily).
P3) If there were an infinite series of causes, then that infinite series would be a thing that exists and is uncaused.
C1) Therefore, the causes of everything that exists now can be traced back to something that doesn't have a cause. I'm calling that thing that you can trace it back to the 'first cause'. So the final conclusion is basically there there is a first cause.

---

I think I generally understand what you mean (and to the OP), but I agree with Wayfaerer about instead labeling the "first cause" as "causeless" and/or "eternal." Also they way you are using "arbitrary" must not apply to the actual universe, but to reasoning itself. The universe itself is not ultimately arbitrary, but it is ultimately causeless or eternal, which exists before any arbitrary statement is possible.

I'll clarify:

The universe has causes only within reason, but at a point there will be no more causality applicable to existence; where no reason is applicable. At that point the whole structure can be said to be causeless; suspended in space and time. The conclusion "infinite series of causes" is meaningless, impossible and unsimplified (synonymous to "an infinite series of reasons" or "an infinite series of why?'s") compared to the positive statement that existence itself is causeless.

Causality and reason are limited by the describing, asserting, projecting of "causes" about the universe, for they are concepts that have no independent existence.

Therefore, to start by making any reason or assertion about the universe, by default one inevitably starts with nothing but that. That is the same as pushing reasoning to its limits and finding that nothing has preceded it; to mention "start with nothing" has little relevance to the reasoning process in itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dianeva

I actually do think I have a handle on the concepts. None of those definitions are difficult to grasp. I don't know why you think I or anyone else shouldn't have a handle on them.

Logic - deductive reasoning.
Arbitrary - it happened for no reason.
Nothing - the absence of anything including space, time, or any rules.

What I'm concluding is simple really. I'll try to explain it more concisely, in a different way.

P1) For anything that exists, there are two options: either it has a cause, or it doesn't. (You agree with that, right? "A or not A" is a tautology.)
P2) If something doesn't have a cause, then it happened for no reason (arbitrarily).
P3) If there were an infinite series of causes, then that infinite series would be a thing that exists and is uncaused.
C1) Therefore, the causes of everything that exists now can be traced back to something that doesn't have a cause. I'm calling that thing that you can trace it back to the 'first cause'. So the final conclusion is basically there there is a first cause.

---

I'm not entirely sure you do have a grasp. I don't say this to be offending, just that I've seen you repeatedly say that you think you have a grasp of the definitions of the words you are using and the concepts you are trying to convey, but that you don't understand why people don't get it, disagree, or think you don't have a grasp of your chosen vocabulary. How many people does it take for you to admit that they may be right? Everyone I've seen explain why they think you are wrong thus far you have rejected using the argument that you think you are right and that it is a simple concept, therefore they are the ones that are wrong. Truthfully that is not an argument, it isn't even a strong attempt to rationalize the situation. It's you willfully denying any viewpoint other than your own. Personally, I stand corrected to Xei. Speaking logically, I made the best argument I could. However, not being an avid aficionado of the study of more advanced physics/science dealing with space and newer discoveries, I am more inclined to believe what he said.

Concerning your use of the word cause, I am still having trouble with exactly which definition you are trying to use. Either you think it is appropriate to think that effect follows romantic cause rather than preceding action, actions, or acting forces; or, you cannot see the salience between the two definitions of the word. You cannot use the word in the sense of preceding action in one place throughout the argument and then change it to romantic cause in the same context later on, and I think your conclusion is fatally flawed if you meant the romantic cause from the start. Romantic cause, as far as anyone can tell, exists only in the sense that it guides beings or entities with the ability to act based on how they feel or see fit. It is an abstraction. Unless you mean to imply that the universe is conscious or that it was created by a conscious being, you cannot use romantic cause as any kind of argument. If the former is true, you need to elaborate on that, and good luck providing any evidence for either of those.

About the initial cause being arbitrary, I guess I can agree with that. However, I agree with Wayfaerer as well. I don't understand how you arrived at the conclusion you did, or if I am misunderstanding, why you chose the wording you did. More than anything here I've just been confused about your conclusion because it seems like you're trying to say what's been common knowledge for a while: that something cannot arise from nothing. If you mean something other than the absence of existence, which it sounded like you did when replying to me, then I can't for the life of my see why you chose and still choose to label it as "nothing." Because to me, nothing means the absence of existence. The absence of existence cannot exist because for nothing to "exist", something obviously exists. I suppose I'm just arguing semantics, but I'm like that. I need someone to be clear on what they are meaning to say, or I don't feel like I can properly understand them and formulate any kind of argument against or for them. Ambiguity is the enemy here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dianeva

The possibility of an infinite regression of causes. I basically said that that infinite series would still be a 'something', and where did that come from? Then the series itself would be the first cause.

---

Is this well defined?

Your rephrasing puts us in even greater trouble because you use the word 'exists'. What is the definition of exists? If the word is atomic, how did you as a human learn it? Thus, with a crucial emphasis on the epistemology of the word, what are we allowed to argue about it?

If you analyse it, I think there is a contradiction in the use of definitions; at the very least an incongruence:

You essentially deal with two exhaustive mutually exclusive cases: that X has a finite series of reasons (I will use the term 'reason' for convenience and clarity instead of the ambiguous 'cause'), or X has an infinite series of reasons. But then you assert that this infinite series of reasons can be also said to have a 'reason'. But surely this reason is a reason for X, contradicting the assumption that X can be unambiguously said to have an infinite series of reasons? I think assigning a finite (singular) reason, and moreover a reason with 'existence', to an infinite sequence of reasons, is dubious. And more importantly I think it's stretching human knowledge past breaking point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

What does even that mean? Knowledge ultimately rests with truth itself; that is the a priori that cannot be wronged. That is a step further than "recognition".

---

What do you mean, 'what does that even mean'? I wrote a whole essay explaining it. Read it.

If you're defining knowledge to mean absolute certainty of 'truth itself', then we have no knowledge. So it's a pretty useless definition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snoop

Personally, I stand corrected to Xei. Speaking logically, I made the best argument I could. However, not being an avid aficionado of the study of more advanced physics/science dealing with space and newer discoveries, I am more inclined to believe what he said.

---

I hope I didn't force you into submission via my (layman's) knowledge of physics; those facts themselves really were irrelevant to the discussion at hand. What I am trying to say had been argued for four centuries, at least. It's just that only in the last hundred years or so have we understood our real place in the universe (thanks to Darwin) and the reason that our minds exist, and we've had access to such striking examples of its verisimilitude (thanks to examples like general relativity and quantum physics); they are just examples meant to bolster the central idea.

I think the fact that everybody (including Dianeva) is unable to clearly define the issues demonstrates that we're dealing with something that's beyond human comprehension. Seeing as we evolved in a universe, according to its principles, I think it's impossible for us to really understand anything beyond that universe - the combined effort of science haven't yet penetrated all the way to the moment of the Singularity - how can we be expected to make intelligent statements about it or anything "before" it? Personally I find it utterly impossible to meaningfully understand a complete lack of existence - I can picture black empty space, and the only way I can imagine no space is if there's solid matter there instead. Space to me is simply the lack of matter. I have no idea what else could possibly be there (see, the word there implies a place - I can't even speak about it properly).

Sorry to say it Dianeva, but I think you're trying to make definitive statements about the Unknowable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Photolysis

This sort of what I was driving at earlier with my point. What we term existence and non-existence actually comes with a lot of excess baggage, and this baggage simply isn't there without a universe.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

As far as I can tell most of this thread has essentially been meaningless nonsense, based on a misunderstanding (loosely an overestimation) of what words and knowledge are. Word games, in every sense.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

At every stage all you have is an assertion. You're expecting this process to somehow end up with something that explains itself, but it is obvious that this will never occur.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

We don't even know if the concept of 'nothing' makes sense. How do you define it; or if it's an atomic word, how did you learn what it meant? Certainly we don't have any intuitive grasp on its behaviour, and we can't make assertions like 'nothing begets nothing', if that even means anything.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

I think maybe you are missing my main message... I was trying in general to form a picture of knowledge and why discussions like these don't even have any meaning, or at least validity.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

I really don't think this matters, it really is just word games like Xei mentioned, but I think it's fun anyway lol

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

I think the fact that everybody (including Dianeva) is unable to clearly define the issues demonstrates that we're dealing with something that's beyond human comprehension.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Personally I find it utterly impossible to meaningfully understand a complete lack of existence

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Sorry to say it Dianeva, but I think you're trying to make definitive statements about the Unknowable.

---

good points good points good points

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

You essentially deal with two exhaustive mutually exclusive cases: that X has a finite series of reasons (I will use the term 'reason' for convenience and clarity instead of the ambiguous 'cause'), or X has an infinite series of reasons. But then you assert that this infinite series of reasons can be also said to have a 'reason'. But surely this reason is a reason for X, contradicting the assumption that X can be unambiguously said to have an infinite series of reasons?

---

That's the point. Since when is "have an infinite series of reasons" not a reason in itself? Furthermore why is it even worth considering as a final answer? Therefore the intellect has to arrive at the fact that it has no explicit "fact" for an infinite universe, despite that such a universe must exist. The famous "no beginning" to the universe is the humble answer that is more insightful than anything else.

Quote:

---

What do you mean, 'what does that even mean'? I wrote a whole essay explaining it. Read it.

---

I asked rhetorically "What does even that mean?", not "what does that even mean". Which is to imply that your statement was incomplete or still carrying baggage. You shouldn't have to write me a big essay to make a simple statement of truth; I.e. That real knowledge rests with truth, or furthermore "knowledge is truth".

How can it be so hard to understand? It is constant, because even if that knowledge is wronged, it has become another truth. This is knowledge at its very roots, without which, not even a fallacious idea or "error" could be conceived. Even if the constant wasn't possible, you have made the contradiction by making a statement that you think is always true ("You are looking for some a priori explanation based on general principles, but there is no such thing.").

If you can give some insight how an a priori statement can be made at all, you should; "general principles" or not.

Quote:

---

If you're defining knowledge to mean absolute certainty of 'truth itself', then we have no knowledge. So it's a pretty useless definition.

---

If there is no certainty then why is it called knowledge? There is a degree of certainty or truth, and that is fundamental in every instance it has, and behind whatever form it takes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Sorry to say it Dianeva, but I think you're trying to make definitive statements about the Unknowable.

---

It is all ok if we are able to think about this more abstractly. For instance, speaking more about the limitations about the big questions, rather than looking at the answers only. Of course, either way it's easier if Dianeva elaborates on her definitions.

Truth = Objective

Knowledge = Subjective

Do you realize how ambiguous that is alone?

There is no such thing as truth that isn't known. How can something be true if it is non-existent?

Yeah, nice one really, humans never discover new things. Well thought out.

How is it possible to say that something is true before it is known? Well that's what discovery is for isn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

How is it possible to say that something is true before it is known? Well that's what discovery is for isn't it?

---

Exactly, there are relative truths out there yet to be known.

I guess these short posts might not be as helpful to others as they actually could be. Everybody should elaborate their keywords if they want something it to flow smoothly.

I'm using "knowledge" and truth together because truth has no meaning outside our awareness of it, or our "knowledge" of it, or subjectivity. Since we always know something, something is always true on some relative level, but that is subject to change. The "unknown" truth (as you say, Wayfaerer) is the permanent truth that is unchanging and not explicable by the mind, but it is still known on a deeper level from which other truths arise. If it wasn't known on some level then there's no reason for it to be called truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

Exactly, there are relative truths out there yet to be known.

---

But they're not truths "out there." They're better termed as "facts" that, only once been confirmed, can be said to have been (out there). Until it is known, it can be said to be true (experientially, knowledgeably). You can't say "there are truths awaiting discovery" with any great significance.

So then - what - the world wasn't truthfully round until we knew about it?

That would mean the discovery that the earth is actually round preceded the fact of it BEING round. Effect before cause.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

You can't say "there are [relative] truths awaiting discovery" with any great significance.

---

The way I define it I can. I use it in a much more objective sense than you do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

So then - what - the world wasn't truthfully round until we knew about it?

That would mean the discovery that the earth is actually round preceded the fact of it BEING round. Effect before cause.

---

Let's say you are from the era when many believed the world was flat. That is what is true to you, according to your naive perception of the ground and sky etc. Is the earth truthfully round? No, because considering all of the former, it is truthfully flat. Truthfully - by what you know, I.e. relative truth. It is not the same as "factually round".

Until you know that, you have no reason to say it's truly round, or that it is in fact round.
Until you know otherwise, you can't say that it has in fact been round.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

The way I define it I can. I use it in a much more objective sense than you do.

---

How do you define it? What is relative about it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Let's say you are from the era when many believed the world was flat. That is what is true to you, according to your naive perception of the ground and sky etc. Is the earth truthfully round? No, because considering all of the former, it is truthfully flat. Truthfully - by what you know, I.e. relative truth. It is not the same as "factually round".

---

So let me see if I get this straight - according to your definition - what we KNOW - that's truth, What's actually objectively TRUE whether we know it or not - that's knowledge. Um yeah...

Ok then, how about this - how many people have to know something in order for it to be true? What if ten people know that the earth is round and everybody else believes it's flat... what's actually true then?


You do understand that calling something true doesn't make it true, right?

I define relative truth as the latest theories relative to our previously accepted theories that weren't as adequate in explaining our observations. I also include the yet to be discovered theories that would be relatively true over our currently accepted theories with obvious inadequacies. There is an objective aspect in these because they are inevitable steps in the knowledge of humanity.

The tao that can be spoken is not the eternal tao.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

So let me see if I get this straight - according to your definition - what we KNOW - that's truth, What's actually objectively TRUE whether we know it or not - that's knowledge. Um yeah...

---

I use the experiential definition of truth, which is much more practical and essential. An objective truth is simply called a fact.

Quote:

---

Ok then, how about this - how many people have to know something in order for it to be true?

---

True for what? For it to be objectively true, somebody has to confirm it via the scientific method or an experiment. For it just to be true (to one observer), it has to be known. Nothing else really matters.

Quote:

---

What if ten people know that the earth is round and everybody else believes it's flat... what's actually true then?

---

You are just begging for a different answer. There isn't a truth "out there" except for what has been termed a fact. You are asking for "objective truth" but I am explaining that there is more to what is considered true in each scenario.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

I define relative truth as the latest theories relative to our previously accepted theories that weren't as adequate in explaining our observations. I also include the yet to be discovered theories that would be relatively true over our currently accepted theories with obvious inadequacies.

---

Relative truth is usually defined as something that is true within relative circumstances, or local conditions, with no particular bias except that it is differentiated from universal truths, or the absolute. That counts both objectively and subjectively, but more often in the subjective world (beliefs, decision making, attitude, etc).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

I use the experiential definition of truth, which is much more practical and essential. An objective truth is simply called a fact.

---

Your really persistent with these pointless semantics aren't you? Just for fun, I'm going to join in that game and say that there are no such things as facts, they are defined with an attitude much too absolute for describing anything in the universe, a much more appropriate term would be 'relative truth'. The earth is relatively more like a sphere than it is flat, it is not in fact a sphere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Relative truth is usually defined as something that is true within relative circumstances, or local conditions, with no particular bias except that it is differentiated from universal truths, or the absolute. That counts both objectively and subjectively.

---

Basically, how I defined it, ok.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Let's say you are from the era when many believed the world was flat. That is what is true to you, according to your naive perception of the ground and sky etc. Is the earth truthfully round? No, because considering all of the former, it is truthfully flat. Truthfully - by what you know, I.e. relative truth. It is not the same as "factually round".

---

What a useless and intentionally unhelpful and contrary definition of truth.

Ok really, now it's clear why you're having so much trouble participating in this discussion - the rest of us are using the standard definitions of the words while you're using obscure alternative definitions.

Rather than having to constantly stop and explain your alternative definitions and continually impede the progress of the thread, wouldn't it make sense for you to use the same definitions of words the rest of us are using? Of course the alternative is for you to teach us all your definitions, but that's obviously counterproductive. I thunk you already know the language we're speaking, though you keep insisting on speaking a different one.

Also, I'd like to point out that what you defined as Truth is actually not even Knowledge (in the example of a person who thinks the earth is flat). It's merely Belief. You could only experientially call it Knowledge (or by your definition Truth) if that person had actually experienced the entirety of the earth's surface, or enough of it to enable him to make a meaningful statement about it in its entirety. Obviously anyone who thought the earth was flat had not had any such experience - they had only experienced local portions of the earth's surface. Therefore their experience cannot speak about anything that's actually BEYOND their experience. They can speak of Knowledge (Truth by your definition) only of those portions of the earth they have visited.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Ok really, now it's clear why you're having so much trouble participating in this discussion - the rest of us are using the standard definitions of the words while you're using obscure alternative definitions.

Rather than having to constantly stop and explain your alternative definitions and continually impede the progress of the thread, wouldn't it make sense for you to use the same definitions of words the rest of us are using? Of course the alternative is for you to teach us all your definitions, but that's obviously counterproductive. I thunk you already know the language we're speaking, though you keep insisting on speaking a different one.

---

Let's see!

- "The quality or state of being true: "the truth of her accusation".
- "That which is true or in accordance with fact or reality"

Are you surprised to know that these apply to my view? "Fact or reality."

Quote:

---

Also, I'd like to point out that what you defined as Truth is actually not even Knowledge (in the example of a person who thinks the earth is flat). It's merely Belief. You could only experientially call it Knowledge (or by your definition Truth) if that person had actually experienced the entirety of the earth's surface, or enough of it to enable him to make a meaningful statement about it in its entirety.

---

What I mean by experiential is that the truth is derived from his experience or observation. If all of it indicates that the world is flat, then to his knowledge the world is truthfully flat. If he claims this, and then his claim is later disproven; his claim is wrong, but the truth of his observation has not become false, only misrepresented. It has become false as a claim to be more than an observation, which is to be a physical reality as well.

Quote:

---

Obviously anyone who thought the earth was flat had not had any such experience - they had only experienced local portions of the earth's surface. Therefore their experience cannot speak about anything that's actually BEYOND their experience. They can speak of Knowledge (Truth by your definition) only of those portions of the earth they have visited.

---

That's right, but the reality of the experience itself; the experience of those conditions was never anything else than what it was - I.e. the truth of that experience was sufficient in that perspective. Given the technology, culture, time and place, the thought that "the world is flat" has no demand (or perhaps motivation) to be assured or corrected, until perhaps it is made practical to do so. If you walk outside right now, it doesn't take much for the experience to leave a sufficient impression, that it is flat.

You are stuck with correcting the "belief" and calling it right or wrong, but that doesn't change the truth of that belief. The truth can be many things; it can be that the earth is flat, it can be that it is round, it can be that it is two or three dimensional, but what are we talking about here? Obviously I'm not asking whether or not their belief is concordant with the reality in the external world, I'm giving attention to what makes their belief what it is - it is true on that level. That is relative truth; that is the reality of that belief.

So the problems with the discussion here is mainly that you (and others here) are using the often presumed context for truth in an exclusive sense; i.e. that the truth is only what is in accordance with the "objective" (albeit often physical) world. But truth and its objectivity apply to anything and everything that is real; yes beliefs too.

To summarize and return to the point of the topic, where I started:

Truth will always depend on context. Reality is never void of truth or context on some level, and that is already present inside our knowledge. Where there is truth, there is reality, and neither can exist without knowledge.


Let's put this back on topic. I don't think I need to add anything, but this all basically started from here:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

If you're defining knowledge to mean absolute certainty of 'truth itself', then we have no knowledge. So it's a pretty useless definition.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

I use the experiential definition of truth, which is much more practical and essential. An objective truth is simply called a fact.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

(definition of Truth)
- "That which is true or in accordance with fact or reality"

---

Complete and utter fail.

I agree with Darkmatters. Semantics were an issue when there was grey area in the OP and it needed to be expounded upon for specificity's sake. Now it's just arguing for the sake of arguing, and it's clear which definitions the general populace are going to stick by... making those definitions the only sensible ones to use.

Well, I guess between this and lidybug's "All Points of View are Truth" thread I'm getting some insight now into a certain type of person who believes in this "experiential" perspective. They're very difficult to communicate with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Well, I guess between this and lidybug's "All Points of View are Truth" thread I'm getting some insight now into a certain type of person who believes in this "experiential" perspective. They're very difficult to communicate with.

---

Meh. I am a happy practitioner the "experiential" perspective of reality. It lies at the basis of both buddhist metaphysics and the outgrowth of christian metaphysics that became "science". By itself, it creates a lightweight, adaptable view of the world that doesn't leave one clinging to pre-concieved notions in the face of actual, experiential reality. Learning to separate things that are inferred through some model of reality from things that are actually experienced is a great exercise in mindfulness and clear thinking. Pursuing it to the foundations of whatever belief system you start with (and watching said believe system disolve into a puddle of delusion) seems to be an awesome process.

Words are one of the primary tools that we use to wall ourselves off from experiential reality. If one is going to think at all (more trouble than it's worth most of the time in my experience) one might as well think clearly. Having words clearly defined is pretty much a prerequisite for this.

So in no way should redefining words be in any way a symptom of practicing the "experiential perspective" of reality. I'm guilty of doing things like that myself sometimes just to tweak with people. I do think it has it's role to play in breaking assumptions but more often than not, it just leads to more confusion.

Note that most people that don't practice the "experiental perspective" of reality don't define their words clearly themselves, though they do keep their usage inside the bounds where "everyone knows what it means". Whatever that means. Furthermore, most people, regardless of their view of reality seem either unwilling or unable to distinquish between here and now reality and metaphysical assumptions. For one that tries to do both of these things, it can feel like words are being tossed around in a haphazard, masturbatory manner anyways with everybody talking past everybody else and so why not come in with something out of left field and make them think.

People then note real masters pulling tricks like that and try to mimick them to sound like heavy duty spiritual dudes.

At any rate, unless you can demonstrate a causal connection between practicing the experiential view of reality and being difficult to communicate with, you might just be adding another brick to the wall of your own delusion in making that particular assumption :)

The OP: how about..

Off - ON - Pulse - Wave - etc.?

Most words I've tried as the first in the sequence have (need) an opposite.. they're all comparative terms: nothing/something, off/on, stillness/motion, inaction/action, etc.

So does it all start with binary?

No/Yes?

A good word for an opposite of the word "time" would be nice, though.

Oh..

Stop/Start.. maybe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Complete and utter fail.

---

As if I didn't elaborate. No thanks to you for acknowledging the rest of my post.

All I did was draw the value of truth into the experience, I.e. the experiential. The only reason why it won't bear facts is because experiential truths are often improvable, not because they aren't real.


Edit: PhilosopherStoned, I hope you don't think I'm "practicing" anything here. This all really applies whether people like it or not.

Did you miss the fact that in one post you said "Truth is what we know - objective reality is simply called Fact" and then in a later post you defined Truth as Fact? Totally self-contradictory.

And I did try to read the rest of your post, but it became hopelessly muddled.

PhilosopherStoned - I have no trouble understanding you. And I'll completely agree - "We" don't really define "our" terms clearly , and that is a major cause of confusion - but at the very least to carry on a conversation like this we should all use the accepted definitions of terms. I think really's continued refusal to do so is annoying and amounts to little more than trolling - especially considering he's now using completely contradictory definitions for Truth!

And I'll also agree that what we call Objective Truth is really only an approximation - as close as Science can get to understanding the truth, and even then each of us has an incomplete or confused understanding of the scientific consensus.

What all this points to is that, in order for a group of people to meaningfully discuss such a topic it's necessary to define terms and all agree to use the same definitions. As I've said elsewhere on the board, a huge step toward finding a solution is simply to properly define the question so as to remove as much confusion as possible. That's why I'm so gung-ho on this.

Lol not that I think we're going to make any real headway on this topic - I suspect this discussion has pretty well run its course unless somebody can come in with something shiny and new.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Did you miss the fact that in one post you said "Truth is what we know - objective reality is simply called Fact" and then in a later post you defined Truth as Fact? Totally self-contradictory.

---

If it makes you happy, how about you ignore the truth and fact problem, which is semantics more than anything. I thought I'd make a distinction to further clarify my point but obviously it didn't help.

Now what are you left with?

Question: Is it a fact that knowledge is real? (Real - having existence on any level). If you answered "yes", then knowledge is always true in itself, because we always experience knowledge or knowing in some way, and:

- "That which is true or in accordance with fact or reality"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Let's see!

- "The quality or state of being true: "the truth of her accusation".
- "That which is true or in accordance with fact or reality"

---

These are basically circular definitions so let's go beyond them. What is "true", "fact" and "reality"? Beyond that, those definitions are only thin veils over an undefined term.

Quote:

---

What I mean by experiential is that the truth is derived from his experience or observation. If all of it indicates that the world is flat, then to his knowledge the world is truthfully flat. If he claims this, and then his claim is later disproven; his claim is wrong, but the truth of his observation has not become false, only misrepresented. It has become false as a claim to be more than an observation, which is to be a physical reality as well.

---

So truth is an idea? really? If you want to talk about truth then I would say that it only lays in and in fact is direct experience. You're already talking about "earth" and "flat" and making all sorts of metaphysical assumptions to do so. It will never be the case that the thought structure "the earth is flat" is true in any meaningfull sense. Why are you arguing that it will be?

Quote:

---

That's right, but the reality of the experience itself; the experience of those conditions was never anything else than what it was - I.e. the truth of that experience was sufficient in that perspective. Given the technology, culture, time and place, the thought that "the world is flat" has no demand (or perhaps motivation) to be assured or corrected, until perhaps it is made practical to do so. If you walk outside right now, it doesn't take much for the experience to leave a sufficient impression, that it is flat.

---

You're contradicting yourself here. Again, is the idea that the "world" is "flat" in any way reality?

Quote:

---

You are stuck with correcting the "belief" and calling it right or wrong, but that doesn't change the truth of that belief.

---

That's exactly what you're doing with the same result.

Quote:

---

The truth can be many things; it can be that the earth is flat, it can be that it is round, it can be that it is two or three dimensional, but what are we talking about here? Obviously I'm not asking whether or not their belief is concordant with the reality in the external world, I'm giving attention to what makes their belief what it is - it is true on that level. That is relative truth; that is the reality of that belief.

---

If everybody just treated any assertion you make that "S is true" as if it were the assertion that "It is true that somebody believes that S is true" then I don't think there would be any confusion. That's basically what you mean when you use the word "true".

Quote:

---

So the problems with the discussion here is mainly that you (and others here) are using the often presumed context for truth in an exclusive sense; i.e. that the truth is only what is in accordance with the "objective" (albeit often physical) world. But truth and its objectivity apply to anything and everything that is real; yes beliefs too.

---

What you seem to be doing here is trying to move from the western notion of 5 senses to the buddhist notion of 6 senses ("mind" is the sixth with "thought" as its object). In that sense, it can be said that "beliefs" are real and this is a very useful perspective to take for personal transformation and daily living. But then you are the one trying to apply an exclusive context to determine the meaning of truth. If you don't want to think of it in the buddhist sense, then how else would you describe it?

Quote:

---

To summarize and return to the point of the topic, where I started:

Truth will always depend on context. Reality is never void of truth or context on some level, and that is already present inside our knowledge. Where there is truth, there is reality, and neither can exist without knowledge.

---

As others have pointed out, this is diametrically opposed to the prevailing notion of truth and will do nothing but confuse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

These are basically circular definitions so let's go beyond them. What is "true", "fact" and "reality"? Beyond that, those definitions are only thin veils over an undefined term.

---

"Truth" as a stand-alone word, really doesn't need any definition because it cannot be defined explicitly by itself. It only becomes meaningful inside context (which I may have alluded to as definitions as well). In this case, the context of knowledge itself is the one that encompasses every other truth, but when it comes to whether or not something is true in the outer physical world: it is exclusive and specific.

Quote:

---

So truth is an idea? really? If you want to talk about truth then I would say that it only lays in and in fact is direct experience. You're already talking about "earth" and "flat" and making all sorts of metaphysical assumptions to do so. It will never be the case that the thought structure "the earth is flat" is true in any meaningfull sense. Why are you arguing that it will be?

---

Of course it is - it is meaningful via the direct experience, otherwise such a phrase would have never come into existence. The very presence of the phrase means it had to appear true. You would not say "the world is flat!" if you were under the impression that it was round, unless you were being sarcastic, etc.

Quote:

---

You're contradicting yourself here. Again, is the idea that the "world" is "flat" in any way reality?

---

Yes, in the reality of the observation itself, nothing more or less. The "observer," knows of that observation completely and directly.

Quote:

---

That's exactly what you're doing with the same result.

---

How do you think so? I have no clue.

Quote:

---

If everybody just treated any assertion you make that "S is true" as if it were the assertion that "It is true that somebody believes that S is true" then I don't think there would be any confusion. That's basically what you mean when you use the word "true".

---

That's probably a more blunt way to write it than I have, so you could say that. However you mustn't then discard the significance it bears by just calling it a "belief", because that is beside the point; it is equally founded and unbiased as any other assertion a person can make.

Quote:

---

What you seem to be doing here is trying to move from the western notion of 5 senses to the buddhist notion of 6 senses ("mind" is the sixth with "thought" as its object). In that sense, it can be said that "beliefs" are real and this is a very useful perspective to take for personal transformation and daily living. But then you are the one trying to apply an exclusive context to determine the meaning of truth. If you don't want to think of it in the buddhist sense, then how else would you describe it?

---

Interesting, but that's not exactly where I'm coming from. Yes, thoughts and beliefs can be objects, but so can anything we choose to talk about. And because they exist, they bear truth and reality in some way. Just how is that an exclusive context that in turn rejects the a priori attribute?

Quote:

---

As others have pointed out, this is diametrically opposed to the prevailing notion of truth and will do nothing but confuse.

---

As far as I'm concerned, nobody has "pointed" out how it is incorrect, at least not specifically enough, and if they did, their own argument would also fail. Because what I have stated there is what makes it possible in the first place.

Ok, now I see I misunderstood something. When I said that really and lidybug (as well as a few other people on the board) are hard to understand, I was assuming that what they had in common is this "experiential" viewpoint. But now PhilosopherStoned, who says he comes from the experiential viewpoint, seems to disagree fundamentally with what really is saying. So maybe experientialism isn't what causes what I see as an essentially 'inside-out' viewpoint, where subjective interior experience is treated as if it's the only reality and objective truth is treated as if it's unimportant or possibly meaningless.

The reason I said lidybug was hard to understand is because I couldn't agree with or make sense of what she was saying until I suddenly understood that every time she said Truth I needed to insert the word Subjective in front of it. When I did that, then suddenly I found it all made sense and I could agree with it. And it turns out the same is true for really, though he hid the fact for many posts in a row before finally revealing it, as if we were supposed to somehow just know.

To me this is inside-out from the way I and most people I know perceive reality. We give preeminence to the objective realities that we all perceive in the external world - especially those that have been tested and codified by science - whereas these 'inside-out' people give preeminence to interior subjective experience. And by experience they seem to mean not actual physical experience, but only belief.

Talking to them is literally like stepping through a looking glass and conversing with the Mad Hatter. Everything is turned inside-out - our external reality is their wispy dream, and their unfounded and untested belief comprises the most essential reality for them. I'm constantly baffled and frustrated in my attempts to communicate - well with really anyway, not so much with lidybug. When I suggested to her that I could understand her better when I put the word Subjective in front of her Truth she accepted it, but really seems bound and determined to deny this attempt on my part to find some way to connect our views so we can communicate effectively. He seems to feel that he's absolutely right and can't seem to understand anyone else's viewpoint, even though obviously 'our' viewpoint is the common one shared by most people in the world. This seems hopelessly insular to me and abstruse.

So really - no hard feelings, but I'm done trying to communicate with you. It's too frustrating. Maybe PS can get through...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

In this case, the context of knowledge itself is the one that encompasses every other truth, but when it comes to whether or not something is true in the outer physical world: it is exclusive and specific.

---

You're doing it again. What is this "outer physical world"?

Quote:

---

Of course it is - it is meaningful via the direct experience, otherwise such a phrase would have never come into existence.

---

So you directly experience "the earth"? Or do you directly experience the touch sensation of pressure on your feet, the color of your surroundings and so on? Are you then superimposing your ideas onto reality?

Quote:

---

The very presence of the phrase means it had to appear true. You would not say "the world is flat!" if you were under the impression that it was round, unless you were being sarcastic, etc.

---

No of course not. But then the "world" isn't "flat" is it? Look at it. See that footprint an ant just made? It's not flat. What do you mean by "flat" for the statement to be true?

Quote:

---

Yes, in the reality of the observation itself, nothing more or less. The "observer," knows of that observation completely and directly.

---

So what is all this stuff about "earth" and "flat"? Is that knowing experience completely and directly?

I can't decipher any of this other stuff you're writing. It strikes me as a lot of psuedo-spiritual masturbation. Is that what it is? Are you just trying to sound deep?

I will concede that people behave as if their ideas are synonomous with reality. This does not make the statement that the world is flat or the world is round or any other statement true. On the one hand, you're arguing for the truth of direct experience and on the other hand arguing that some statements (which have nothing to do with direct experience) are true. Which is it? Is your "reality" reality or is it delusion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Ok, now I see I misunderstood something. When I said that really and lidybug (as well as a few other people on the board) are hard to understand, I was assuming that what they had in common is this "experiential" viewpoint. But now PhilosopherStoned, who says he comes from the experiential viewpoint, seems to disagree fundamentally with what really is saying. So maybe experientialism isn't what causes what I see as an essentially 'inside-out' viewpoint, where subjective interior experience is treated as if it's the only reality and objective truth is treated as if it's unimportant or possibly meaningless.

---

Just to note: I treat it as a fundamental irreducible reality, and therefore the objective external world is not rejected but seen as still falling inside the subjective.

Quote:

---

Talking to them is literally like stepping through a looking glass and conversing with the Mad Hatter. Everything is turned inside-out - our external reality is their wispy dream, and their unfounded and untested belief comprises the most essential reality for them. I'm constantly baffled and frustrated in my attempts to communicate - well with really anyway, not so much with lidybug. When I suggested to her that I could understand her better when I put the word Subjective in front of her Truth she accepted it, but really seems bound and determined to deny this attempt on my part to find some way to connect our views so we can communicate effectively. He seems to feel that he's absolutely right and can't seem to understand anyone else's viewpoint, even though obviously 'our' viewpoint is the common one shared by most people in the world. This seems hopelessly insular to me and abstruse.

So really - no hard feelings, but I'm done trying to communicate with you. It's too frustrating. Maybe PS can get through...

---

No hard feelings maybe, but you are probably being condescending by talking about me like that in third person, not to mention being very narrow-minded about how somebody can hold a different view to yours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

You're doing it again. What is this "outer physical world"?

---

I am doing what?

What people commonly refer to as "objective" is the physical, provable world; different from the internal sensing/belief/experience world. When people speak of objective in the position of rejecting the subjective, they are making an exclusive argument. I'll repeat that this is why I preferred that I reject the term "factual" as truth, since nobody can derive a fact from something (true) that they cannot prove.

But who knows of those beliefs better than anyone else, even if they are delusional? Somebody observes them and knows them directly; they are true to knowledge; knowledge within a conscious being. Furthermore if their belief was corrected, their outlook would still be true to their knowledge, right or wrong, and so there is never a time when knowledge is empty or non-existent, which means that knowledge and truth meet.

Quote:

---

So you directly experience "the earth"? Or do you directly experience the touch sensation of pressure on your feet, the color of your surroundings and so on? Are you then superimposing your ideas onto reality?

---

You experience the senses, thoughts and beliefs, which together perceive the world. Could it could have ever been any other way? The totality of this is directly real to the observer. We all know senses can still mislead and may not correlate with the external world. However the subjective phenomena is still perfectly true as an experience, this goes for scientists as anybody else.

Quote:

---

No of course not. But then the "world" isn't "flat" is it? Look at it. See that footprint an ant just made? It's not flat. What do you mean by "flat" for the statement to be true?

---

It could mean a whole range of things, now that you bring it up. But why does it matter? The word is just an adjective that is applied to the world for some particular reason - a reason that had to initially appear true. So because it is not my truth, I cannot really share it with you, so maybe ask somebody who believes in a flat world and they will share their truth with you.

Quote:

---

I will concede that people behave as if their ideas are synonomous with reality. This does not make the statement that the world is flat or the world is round or any other statement true. On the one hand, you're arguing for the truth of direct experience and on the other hand arguing that some statements (which have nothing to do with direct experience) are true. Which is it? Is your "reality" reality or is it delusion?

---

Once again, it looks like you're missing the point that truth depends on context, that applies to people on both ends of this discussion, and therefore I am not entirely rejecting one view here but simply preferring the other.

Truth is exclusive in proof:
- Are ideas synonymous with reality (model / concept of real world)
Truth is all-inclusive in knowledge (intrinsic):
- Ideas are real whether they are right or wrong.

I hope this hasn't deviated too far from the topic.

The world is oblate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

I hope this hasn't deviated too far from the topic.

---

Lol you have to go back a page or two to find the topic - we've effectively killed that!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

No hard feelings maybe, but you are probably being condescending by talking about me like that in third person, not to mention being very narrow-minded about how somebody can hold a different view to yours.

---

I'm not trying to be condescending at all - I'm completely frustrated with trying to communicate clearly with you but I'm struggling to understand why it is that we can't communicate, and I thought other people might be able to shed some light on it if I bring it up, or maybe I might be able to understand better by writing about it. And yes, I suppose I am being a bit narrow-minded (not out of spite, but because I simply can't understand where you're coming from) - but then you're doing the same, aren't you? I'm at least asking questions and trying to understand your viewpoint so we can get past our communication problems, you keep compounding those problems and refusing every offer anyone makes of getting the conversation on terms we can all agree on.

On the subject of belief that the world was flat - first, of course it's irrelevant to say "It's not really flat, it's bumpy" (Bad PhilosopherStoned!). You KNOW what is meant here - that the world was thought to be a surface with edges that people could fall off of as opposed to a (bumpy, irregular) sphere. That was a straw man argument.

But - really - why insist on calling Belief Truth - why not just call it Belief? The only way it can be said to be truth is if you play all your word games which is essentially the same as putting the word Subjective in parentheses in front of Truth. It complicates language.

You said that the Objective is included in this subjective Truth. So doesn't that mean that, now that it's been proved (albeit by somebody else) that the world is indeed a sphere, that this knowledge now becomes a part of even our inner Truth? I may have never experienced the totality of the earth to prove to myself that it's spherical, but that fact has indeed been proven, and I have experienced it secondhand by reading about it. If we reject all of science because we haven't personally done the experiments, we end up living in an insular state unaware of anything except what's inside of us.

The funny thing is that Wayfarer and I are on the same side of this discussion, whereas recently we engaged in almost the same discussion and I took a side very similar to the one really is arguing here. The difference being that I didn't keep telling Wayfarer that his definitions of common words are wrong and he needs to stop using them. My only point then was that we can't PROVE anything exists outside of subjective experience - not that this fact means we need to redefine commonly used words to mean the opposite of what they already mean.

So really - speaking directly to you now - I basically understand your viewpoint, all I'm saying is that if you refuse to use the same definitions of words the rest of us (and the entire world) use, then you can't expect to take a meaningful part in the conversation. I mean look - all you've been doing for a dozen posts in a row now is explaining your definitions of common words - and they're extremely different from the definitions everyone else uses. Do you honestly expect everyone else to suddenly agree to use your definitions? (Which is problematic since you defined Truth as something different from Fact in one post, and in a later one you defined it as Fact).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dianeva

While contemplating the initial reason for things, one must start with nothing. This is because, if you start with something, and that something has no cause for its existence, then that something is completely arbitrary. It could have not existed. The essence of everything is still nothingness, the thing that exists still sprung from nothingness.

Whatever that first cause is, it was completely arbitrary.

---

And (to all the children), congratulations! You nailed it. You've not only become in-tune with Dianeva essence, but also personally and beautifully echoed that sound of juicy, first cause--the whole cosmic Song of Itself--as provided in your very own quote below:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dianeva

fuck you.

---

Within this particular utterance, you relive both the initial pang of existence and the last whimper of ecstasy. Ironical nothing succumbs considerately to something, and thus gives way to significance, to Dianeva. With every fuck you is another twirling victory in this grand cosmic dance--another bursting I twisted round a throbbing you, waltzing over samsara's paved footsteps, revolving eternally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneiro

So does it all start with binary?

---

What a thrill it is to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

The tao that can be spoken is not the eternal tao.

---

I admit that I haven't read this thread in weeks. I'm too tired now so I'll read through it tomorrow. But from skimming the last post it seems some kind of religion has been formed with me as a symbol, and I'm happy about that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Just to note: I treat it as a fundamental irreducible reality, and therefore the objective external world is not rejected but seen as still falling inside the subjective

---

so it makes you up as it goes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

I'm not trying to be condescending at all - I'm completely frustrated with trying to communicate clearly with you but I'm struggling to understand why it is that we can't communicate, and I thought other people might be able to shed some light on it if I bring it up, or maybe I might be able to understand better by writing about it. And yes, I suppose I am being a bit narrow-minded (not out of spite, but because I simply can't understand where you're coming from) - but then you're doing the same, aren't you? I'm at least asking questions and trying to understand your viewpoint so we can get past our communication problems, you keep compounding those problems and refusing every offer anyone makes of getting the conversation on terms we can all agree on.

---

It is funny because I have no need to make up terms that we can all agree with, I am using the same definition as you, and everybody else. Did I not quote them earlier? The only difference is the degree to which they are applied.

Quote:

---

But - really - why insist on calling Belief Truth - why not just call it Belief? The only way it can be said to be truth is if you play all your word games which is essentially the same as putting the word Subjective in parentheses in front of Truth. It complicates language.

---

Did I insist on calling 'Belief Truth'? Why the capital 'T'?

Quote:

---

You said that the Objective is included in this subjective Truth. So doesn't that mean that, now that it's been proved (albeit by somebody else) that the world is indeed a sphere, that this knowledge now becomes a part of even our inner Truth?

---

If it was proven. Otherwise do you really expect somebody to "experience" the whole earth (e.g. they must go into orbit first)? The belief that it was flat was still true to the observer, but that doesn't change the shape of the earth does it?

Quote:

---

I may have never experienced the totality of the earth to prove to myself that it's spherical, but that fact has indeed been proven, and I have experienced it secondhand by reading about it. If we reject all of science because we haven't personally done the experiments, we end up living in an insular state unaware of anything except what's inside of us.

---

That's not what I'm saying. Honestly have you never heard of a relative truth?

Quote:

---

So really - speaking directly to you now - I basically understand your viewpoint, all I'm saying is that if you refuse to use the same definitions of words the rest of us (and the entire world) use, then you can't expect to take a meaningful part in the conversation. I mean look - all you've been doing for a dozen posts in a row now is explaining your definitions of common words - and they're extremely different from the definitions everyone else uses. Do you honestly expect everyone else to suddenly agree to use your definitions? (Which is problematic since you defined Truth as something different from Fact in one post, and in a later one you defined it as Fact).

---

If you think I have to redefine anything, I think you are misunderstanding me. Nothing is extremely different at all, except your skewed interpretation. You have to be honest and ask what is truth? I am not speaking as a relativist, but I am saying that for there to be an absolute truth there are also relative truths. Truth is whatever is real, until contexts are applied; e.g. speaking only of the external world vs. inner world creates an exclusion of personal belief and an importance on science/experiments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenhavoc

so it makes you up as it goes?

---

The subjective is essentially the world of the observer. If there is no observer, there is no objective universe either. So two things: Unless otherwise stated, the observer or subjectivity must not be excluded from speaking of objective truth; or the "objective" truth is not the most persistent truth. Because having truth only applied to the outer world is obviously only half the story of reality, is it not?

What does 'objective' mean?

A mission, preferrably of top-secret nature, of which the fate of the universe may depend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

What does 'objective' mean?

---

Look it up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

The subjective is essentially the world of the observer. If there is no observer, there is no objective universe either.

---

Quote:

---

1. Of or having to do with a material object.
2. Having actual existence or reality.
3.
a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair1.
b. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.

---

Who thinks subjectivity has no actual existence or reality as 2., and is therefore not also objective?

Spoiler for One:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Unless otherwise stated, the observer or subjectivity must not be excluded from speaking of objective truth

---

Who thinks the objective only means either 1. or 3.b?

Spoiler for Two:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

the "objective" truth is not the most persistent truth. Because having truth only applied to the outer world is obviously only half the story of reality, is it not?

---

What does Two have to do with definition 1? Anyway, that seems to be the correct one, let's use it.

What does 'material object' mean?

A form with substance, existing in the present moment.

A non-material object would be a form that is lacking one or both of the other two qualifiers.

What do 'form' and 'substance' mean? Define them. It seems to me that form means 'object' and substance means 'material'. What we have is a synonym, not a definition.

I'm not sure what the present moment has to do with the common meaning of 'material object', surely material objects are often said to have existed in the past?

Substance is a sensory adjective meaning something that affects our sense of touch (can also be applied to various technological extensions of physical contact). Form is a spatial reference meaning that a material object has specific spatial boundaries. A form is a spatial boundary, substance is a rule that enforces the boundary. No two material objects can exist within the same boundary because of their substance.

Having existed is a sort of past participle of the verb "to exist". Saying that something 'has existed' in the past implies that it does not exist in the present. Where is the past? Only in the mind. The past is not material, the present moment is the only time that material objects exist.

When I am dreaming I experience a sensation of touch, yet we don't refer to that as a material object.

Objects such as the wall behind my head; does that not have substance? My brain has no touch receptors, does that not have substance?

I can't think of anything in the physical world with 'form'. You seem to be conceptualising idealised versions of macroscopic objects (with the archaic philosophical concepts of extension and non-intersection), which in reality do not have the property you are ascribing to them. Particles are infinite curves of probability.

And what about gravity? Wouldn't we like that to fall under the definition of 'objective'? It definitely doesn't have 'form' as you defined it.

Atomic and sub-atomic Particles are not material objects. They don't have form or substance, except when they do in which case they are.

Gravity is not an object, it doesn't have form. It is material in that it affects our sense of touch in that we can 'feel' weight in the presence of a massive body; it has substance but not form. The massive body is the material object that the material non-object of gravity is associated with.

When you are dreaming and you experience the sensation of touch, that thing you are touching is a material object only in that present moment in much the same way that gravitational force is indistinguishable from acceleration within a specific frame of reference. You say that we don't normally refer to dream objects as being material objects but we normally only refer to dream objects in the past and not the present. If you refer to them in the present moment then you will most likely see them as material, unless you are lucid and realize that they are immaterial (you put your hand through them) or they are not objects (you make them dissapear/lose spatial boundaries).

So atoms and gravity aren't 'objective'? And objects in dreams are?

As far as I knew things like atoms and gravity were archetypes of objective entities, whereas objects in dreams are an archetype of subjective entities.

Has the definition gone wrong?

I don't know, I answered the question "what is a material object" not "what is the definition of objective". Objective is an adjective and material object is a noun. Not all material objects are objective and not all objective things are material objects. Unless of course objective is being taken out of its normal context and is being defined purely etymologically in which case objective means having the qualities of an object and all objects are objective but still not all objective things are objects. Some things share qualities with objects but are not objects.

In its normal context (paired with subjective) "objective" is a mode of thinking that originates with the object in question as opposed to the subject. An objective description is one that describes an object, whereas a subjective description is one that describes the effect of the object on the subject, usually the person supplying the description. "The ball is blue" is an objective statement." I see a blue ball" is a subjective statement.

Gravity and atoms are objective in that they can be described as sharing the qualities of material objects, and they are objective in the sense that we can speak about their existence independent from the describer. Atoms are material objects sometimes but not always, and gravity is a material component of objects but is not itself an object; it is objective in that not only does it share qualities with objects, it is actually a quality of objects.

As far as "objective and subjective entities" go, an objective entity would be Kant's "thing in itself" which can only be experienced by the thing in question. You are the only "objective entity" in your frame of reference. Subjective entities are those that can only be experienced through how they affect the objective entity; everything but you is a subjective entity in your frame of reference.

If you would like to test this, try describing an atom without referencing how it affects anything else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I don't know, I answered the question "what is a material object" not "what is the definition of objective". Objective is an adjective and material object is a noun. Not all material objects are objective and not all objective things are material objects. Unless of course objective is being taken out of its normal context and is being defined purely etymologically in which case objective means having the qualities of an object and all objects are objective but still not all objective things are objects. Some things share qualities with objects but are not objects.

---

Are you kidding..? The entire point of this current branch of conversation was a definition of 'objective', if you were trying to participate you should have rejected really's definition and used your own. What was the point in continuing down an erroneous path..? Well, anyway:

Quote:

---

In its normal context (paired with subjective) "objective" is a mode of thinking that originates with the object in question as opposed to the subject. An objective description is one that describes an object, whereas a subjective description is one that describes the effect of the object on the subject, usually the person supplying the description. "The ball is blue" is an objective statement." I see a blue ball" is a subjective statement.

---

Hm, okay.

What is the actual ontological difference, though, between saying, 'I see a blue ball', and, 'the ball is blue'? Are these not synonyms?

When you make objective statements such as F = ma, are you not simply codifying (expressing a pattern) in your subjective experience? I don't see any clear delineation here.

Quote:

---

As far as "objective and subjective entities" go, an objective entity would be Kant's "thing in itself" which can only be experienced by the thing in question. You are the only "objective entity" in your frame of reference. Subjective entities are those that can only be experienced through how they affect the objective entity; everything but you is a subjective entity in your frame of reference.

---

I don't know what 'thing in itself' means... again it just sounds like a synonym?

What is the difference between an 'objective entity' here, or just a general entity, described under an objective 'mode of thinking', as before?

What does it mean for a rock to experience itself? If this is impossible, does this mean that a rock is not an objective entity? I don't agree with Kant on much, but I don't recall him requiring that a thing in itself can 'experience' itself.

Quote:

---

If you would like to test this, try describing an atom without referencing how it affects anything else.

---

Thanks for this.

Kant doesn't argue that a rock must experience itself to be real, only that we cannot know a rock in an objective sense without being the rock; we can only know the subjective effects the rock has on us. Our knowledge of the rock is not really of the rock "in itself" but of the body of the rock's effects on our subjective experience.

There is a very significant difference between the two sentences, "The ball is blue" and "I see a blue ball". Its pretty easy to think of examples in which one them is true and the other is false. If you look at a green ball through yellow lenses (edit: I mean, lenses that block yellow), the sentence "the ball is blue" is false while "I see a blue ball" is true.

TBH, I saw that this conversation had devolved into a semantic argument so bad that significant time was being spent just on the definition of words. I didn't go back and read everything that lead to that situation, I just jumped in quickly to get it over with and steer things back in a more deeply philosophical direction.

I just realized that I responded to your post completely backwards.

Your post seems to be pretty backwards, too: a semantic argument is one that arises from ambiguous definitions. Requiring that a person defines their terms clearly is the exact opposite of semantic squabbles. You can't have a deep philosophical conversation about X in the first place if nobody seems to be able to actually describe what X is.

And in fact I don't think you can get any deeper philosophically than realising how narrow the scope of human enquiry is, and understanding exactly what the human mind is and how it fits into nature. Which is what I was in the process of conveying.

I still wouldn't say you have clearly defined 'objective'. I think the Kant thing can be laid to rest as another synonym. As to the first attempt:

What does 'the ball is blue' mean? When we say it, we don't mean it to refer to a property within the actual object itself, because I could shine red light on it, and the ball would be black. So the 'objective' thing you're referring to is the light itself; 'the light hitting my eye caused by the ball is the wavelength correlated with me experiencing blue'.

What does 'I see a blue ball' mean? Well as above what it actually means is 'I see blue light' (in the shape of a ball). But doesn't this mean the same thing as 'I am experiencing something correlated with the perception of blue'?

In your example (ignoring for now that blue light wouldn't actually go through the lens), 'I see a blue ball' is true, as it means 'my perceptions agree with the notion that blue light is hitting my eye', whilst 'the ball is blue', which we unravel to actually mean 'the light hitting my eye caused by the ball is blue' is also true.

So again the distinction isn't very clear. I would suggest that this is just a pathological case in which language ties itself up and hides the real meaning. In reality, if there is a yellow lens in front of us, we know that the statement 'I see a blue ball' is actually disingenuous, and actually means 'the ball appears to be blue but actually isn't'; inside our subjective world model the ball is still the same colour as it is objectively, and indeed it wouldn't make any sense to say otherwise.

Can you explain the distinction for a clearer example? For example, 'I see three points of light'. What does the supposedly converse statement 'there are three points of light' mean?

Here is a different explanatory route that I would like you to try: try to define for me what a square 'is'. I literally don't know what one is, try to explain it to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

What does Two have to do with definition 1? Anyway, that seems to be the correct one, let's use it.

What does 'material object' mean?

---

Seriously? Material object. There really isn't many alternative definitions to be confused with. Physical. Shape, tangible. The second spoiler has to do with it because saying that the material or tangible universe is the only objective/real world is fallacious because it rejects the subjective world from which it arose. Hence "half the story", as a blunt phrase. If there is no material world perceived, then reality must not exist. Obviously fallacious.


Response to last couple of posts:

Xei, you're really over-complicating the matter here. There's no need for this.

Xaqaria is pointing the simple fact that the two closely similar statements can mean quite different things, and hence be true or false independent of the other. By comparison, if one were to look at the green ball through a yellow lense-filter and take that "ball-is-blue" observation as the literal material world, instead of merely the altered perception alone, then what would occur if the lense were to be taken off? The ball would appear green! In the latter case, both the statements "ball is green" and "the ball appears green" would then be true, for arguments sake.

Thus, in the former example it is more safe to say "the ball appears blue," instead of "the ball actually is blue" (the word actually - meaning the color of the ball surface, not the light of the ball through the lense filter)"

My essential point throughout the past several posts was to point out that, analogically, just because the ball is actually green, does not mean to say "the ball appears to be blue" was false; it was a truth in another context. Instead, it means the statement "the ball is blue" is false! I have never been required to redefine things although I may have been confusing for other reasons.

So here are some examples of how the truth persists:

The world...

• is a sphere - true as confirmed by numerous tests/observation to this day.
• appears spherical - true from viewing in outer space.
• appears flat - true from walking the earth; judging from horizon.
• is flat - true to the extent of belief or comprehension of the observation alone (same reason for first bullet point).
• appears as a star - true from the observation many lightyears away.
• is made of plastic - true when referencing a plastic globe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Seriously? Material object. There really isn't many alternative definitions to be confused with. Physical. Shape, tangible.

---

Synonyms. Can you really not tell the difference between definition and empty words? I am a child with no knowledge of these words or concepts. You have so far taught me absolutely nothing, 'material object' could so far mean 'large object' as far as I know. You complain that this is pointless and yet you seem utterly unable to make any progress.

"I am a child with no knowledge of these words or concepts."

But are you? No.

I bet your best guess is correct. What is your best guess?

Stop wasting thread space and grow up.

Wittgenstein and Hume were actually big fat babies who wasted paper. Great work really.

Whenever you would like to continue discussing philosophy without losing your rag, please just ask.

Another concept swooshes over Xei's head, and apparently that means he won the argument -_-

>Claims that analyzing the language in which philosophical propositions are expressed is trivial
>Claims to be doing serious philosophy

This is the point where I add yet another cliche and post a meme of the Joker saying "not sure if serious".

Quote:

---

What if nothing has always existed and so something must also have always existed?

---

Using the reason of the property of nothing, it is obvious that nothing can not be created but is already there thus means it has existed always.

Indeed...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

saying that the material or tangible universe is the only objective/real world is fallacious because it rejects the subjective world from which it arose. Hence "half the story", as a blunt phrase. If there is no material world perceived, then reality must not exist. Obviously fallacious.

---

Wait - what do you mean by the subjective world? Subjectivity is simply a person's experience of the world.. it is not a world.

When people talk about "the world" they sometimes mean just the planet we live on, or sometimes they're referring to the entire universe. What you're calling "the subjective world" is nothing more than a framework of personal reference through which we observe the actual world.

In what way did the material/tangible universe 'arise' from someone's subjective experience of it? The tangible world was around long before there was any living thing to observe it and create subjective experiences of it - unless you're talking about a God who created the universe?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

The world...

• is a sphere - true as confirmed by numerous tests/observation to this day.
• appears spherical - true from viewing in outer space.
• appears flat - true from walking the earth; judging from horizon.
• is flat - true to the extent of belief or comprehension of the observation alone (same reason for first bullet point).
• appears as a star - true from the observation many lightyears away.
• is made of plastic - true when referencing a plastic globe.

---

I must disagree with the last 4 statements.

It isn't the world that appears flat - it's only the small portion of it a person is capable of observing visually. And of course, until we devised ways of extending our capacity to observe this was the only impression of the world (the planet Earth) anyone had. People made the mistake of projecting their incomplete observations onto the entirety of the world.

Your next item is of course an assertion that because a small portion of the earth's surface appears to be flat then subjectively to that person it is flat. This is not truth, this is belief. Confusing the two is not only unproductive but dangerous and I think rather foolish.

A planet may look like a star from a great enough distance, but enough observation will prove that it moves in ways stars don't - that in fact it orbits a star. So a planet only appears to be a star to the uninformed or ignorant. A little knowledge and observation can easily dispel these misconceptions.

The world is not made of plastic. If you're 'referencing a plastic globe' you are not referencing the world.

If you can honestly say that you believe "the world is made of plastic" is a true statement and that the objective material world stops existing if there's no-one observing it, then you obviously aren't talking about the same material world the rest of us are.

It seems you believe that a person's subjective experience of the world is somehow more real than the world itself. In some respects I can agree with this - to that person their own subjective beliefs and impressions and thoughts make up everything they know about the world or the universe, and of course are in some ways more important to them than the actual facts of things they misunderstand. I also agree that any thought a person has exists - as a thought, and even if it's wrong it still exists for them until it is corrected. But where we disagree is that I say they're simply wrong and that their own subjective experiences are only that - subjective experiences - and that the objective universe is what it is regardless of whether a person understands it correctly or not.

Through scientific observation and experimentation we as a species attempt to correct as many of these misperceptions as possible and to come to a closer approximation of just what exists in the real world. We've made great progress, dispelling the illusion of a flat earth and many others, but of course we still have a ways to go.

** edit

Ok sorry - my dog sat down and gave me the most pitiful look imaginable and I had to take her for a walk to alleviate it. Now I can finish what I wanted to say..

I THINK what you're basically getting at is that as humans we can't actually know with absolute certainty exactly what the material world we exist in is like, and that what we call objective knowledge of it is really still subjective. Ok, I agree with this. But only that far, and I think you're taking it farther.

Here is what I believe (and what I'd say the majority of people believe):

1) An objective universe exists, in which we live.

2) We all have subjective experiences of it, and in fact we're not capable of experiencing the universe or any part of it in a way that's entirely free of subjective bias.

3) However, in order to free ourselves of as much subjective bias as possible we've created the scientific method of observation and experimentation. By using this, we can largely dispel illusions which are a danger of untested subjective beliefs.

Xei, your accusation that everything is "a synonym" is getting tired. Every definition is a like a synonym; it is a string of words that has the same meaning of the one word you are defining whereas an actual synonym is different in that it must be a single word that shares the same meaning. This specious dismissal doesn't hold water.

DarkMatters; you say that subjectivity is merely a person's experience of the world and not the world itself; What is the world itself? How does one know anything about the world itself? The only way to have any knowledge of the world is through one's experience of it, and therefore the only knowledge we have is subjective knowledge. We have no way to know the world in itself separate from our experience of it. What we call objective knowledge is merely the consensus of many people's subjective knowledge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Xei, your accusation that everything is "a synonym" is getting tired. Every definition is a like a synonym; it is a string of words that has the same meaning of the one word you are defining whereas an actual synonym is different in that it must be a single word that shares the same meaning.

---

No, it isn't. This is the whole purpose of the dialogue. I don't think you can be considering this issue seriously enough; if every definition is just a synonym, how did you ever learn any words to begin with? You need to consider the fundamental epistemological issue of language acquisition, and in fact all mental concept acquisition.

"Tree" is a synonym of http://www.freefoto.com/images/15/19...erland_web.jpg

Language is about the abstraction of mental concepts. Words are place markers for longer descriptions. The descriptions are place markers for direct experience. The first 'words' were literally pictures of the things they were supposed to represent. I think you are assuming you have a more in depth understanding of the topic (per usual) and this is why there is a disconnect in communication.

Definition of synonym; A word or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same as another word or phrase in the same language.

If you would like to continue this thread of discussion, please first answer the following question, with the above definition in mind: How does a definition differ from a synonym?

A synonym is expressed in language ("a word or phrase"). A definition is a general method of conveying the meaning of a symbol.

The first sentence in your post directly contradicts your proposed definition. Perhaps my knowledge is shallow but at least it is consistent?

No it doesn't? You have a nasty habit of making baseless assertions and believing that these statements are good enough to 'win' any argument. My proposed definition is from the dictionary. "Tree" means the same thing or nearly the same thing as an actual tree, or a picture of one. What first sentence are you even talking about?

Edit; reading back through, I guess you are right. A picture of a tree is not the same language as the english word tree. Is that really the only differentiation you care about? Any definition you get on here will be in english.

The only useful differentiation that I can glean from your post is that a synonym must be expressed in the same language as the word in question and a definition is a more general association that can be expressed outside of the language of the word in question. All this would mean is that a synonym is a specific kind of definition.

What exactly do you expect to get out of a text based discussion in english?

You say tree is a synonym of an actual tree.

Then you say the definition of synonym is restricted to words or phrases.

The mutual incompatibility of these two statements is less of a baseless assertion than it is a painfully obvious one.

It just really seems like you are arguing to try to be right, and not actually for the sake of the conversation at all, which is the general impression that I've always gotten from you. Specifically what are you looking for in a definition besides an english description of a word? (which would also be a synonym)

I'm not arguing Xaqaria, and I am not trying to be gratuitously combative. All I've done is respond to the exact questions which you have given me. To then say I'm picking a fight about semantics is rather dishonest; I didn't initiate it, and I just tried to bring that branch of the conversation to a concise and decisive resolution.

That language needs to go outside of language to attain meaning was the whole purpose of the initial point I was trying to make. This raises the obvious issue of what words and, more generally, concepts, actually are; where they come from and what we can viably do with them. If we continued to analyse the basis of thought, and then the concept of 'objective' within that basis, we would find that it is meaningless.

I felt as though I was at a loss to understand where you were coming from, so I went back and read the parts of the thread I had skipped. Now I see you were essentially arguing for the things that I said that you claimed to disagree with. I really should have just stayed out of it entirely. I personally agree that the entire thing is a semantic argument that tries to make nothing into something.

Ok, I had determined a while back that experientialism itself is not the cause of the inverted thinking process I keep running into from certain people on this board, and suddenly I had the thought "I wonder if there's something called Subjectivism?". Because that would be a lot closer to explaining it. And Lo and behold -

Quote:

---

Subjectivism is a philosophical tenet that accords primacy to subjective experience as fundamental of all measure and law. In extreme forms like Solipsism, it may hold that the nature and existence of every object depends solely on someone's subjective awareness of it.

---

Source: Subjectivism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Wait - what do you mean by the subjective world? Subjectivity is simply a person's experience of the world.. it is not a world.

When people talk about "the world" they sometimes mean just the planet we live on, or sometimes they're referring to the entire universe. What you're calling "the subjective world" is nothing more than a framework of personal reference through which we observe the actual world.

---

"Subjective world" is simply the world of the subjective, speaking figuratively. It is also more than a personal reference, it is the ONLY reference by which any observation is possible, no?

Quote:

---

I must disagree with the last 4 statements.

---

If you disagree you have missed my point that truth depends on context, and therefore to bother arguing is to merely present further scenarios for truth in the same way. It's obvious to me that you're super-imposing your value onto my statements - which alone already demonstrate the point self-sufficiently.
E.g. You say:

"The world is not made of plastic. If you're 'referencing a plastic globe' you are not referencing the world."

But that is beside the point. What do you think is the purpose of a globe? I can certainly call it a plastic world. In other words, as you say: "you obviously aren't talking about the same material world the rest of us are" I am speaking of another truth. It is a different context (by your reference) and therefore it is false (by your reference). But the problem of not seeing the truth is that you're stuck with referencing the material world as the one and only [means of] truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

DarkMatters; you say that subjectivity is merely a person's experience of the world and not the world itself; What is the world itself? How does one know anything about the world itself? The only way to have any knowledge of the world is through one's experience of it, and therefore the only knowledge we have is subjective knowledge. We have no way to know the world in itself separate from our experience of it. What we call objective knowledge is merely the consensus of many people's subjective knowledge.

---

I wish I could've summarized my point in such words, especially if it included "consensus"... :sleeping:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

No, it isn't. This is the whole purpose of the dialogue. I don't think you can be considering this issue seriously enough; if every definition is just a synonym, how did you ever learn any words to begin with? You need to consider the fundamental epistemological issue of language acquisition, and in fact all mental concept acquisition.

---

Come on Xei.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Every definition is like a synonym

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Ok, I had determined a while back that experientialism itself is not the cause of the inverted thinking process I keep running into from certain people on this board, and suddenly I had the thought "I wonder if there's something called Subjectivism?". Because that would be a lot closer to explaining it.

---

How is a label going to help you understand? This may have some parallels, but the distinction "and that there is no underlying true reality that exists independently of perception." does not apply to what I'm saying at all. You think I am denying an underlying reality by saying there are other truths too? They are part of that underlying reality and you secretly know it.

Why did you remove the rest of his post? You're at troll level now, what Xaqaria said was that a synonym is like a definition in the sense that 'it is a string of words that has the same meaning of the one word you are defining'. If you'd actually read the conversation and absorbed its meaning instead of scanning for something to take out of context to create a contradiction which isn't there, you would know that my objection is perfectly coherent; that was exactly the idea I was questioning in my post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

DarkMatters; you say that subjectivity is merely a person's experience of the world and not the world itself; What is the world itself? How does one know anything about the world itself? The only way to have any knowledge of the world is through one's experience of it, and therefore the only knowledge we have is subjective knowledge. We have no way to know the world in itself separate from our experience of it. What we call objective knowledge is merely the consensus of many people's subjective knowledge.

---

Sorry Xaq, I missed this post until Really quoted it just above.

I can make one post that will cover all the points raised by both of you, and yu basically asked the right question s here: "What is the world itself? How does one know anything about the world itself?"



The world itself = physical reality.

What we know of the world = subjective experience, ideas thoughts etc.


Xaq and Really, both of you seem to be confusing "what we know of the world" with the actual world. Obviously there was a world (a universe) before we were here to observe it - we are a part of it. Our physical bodies are just as real as the planets and stars.

To believe that "your ideas of what the world might be" is somehow just as real as that physical reality is solopsism.

Can you show me evidence of this "actual world/physical reality" independent of your subjective experience of it?

Of course. Rocks. Stars. Planets.

Are you telling me that just because we're human and our experiences of things are always filtered through a subjective lens that it means nothing in the universe might actually be real?

One of the points I was making earlier is that we've created the scientific method to filter OUT as much subjective bias as possible - to help keep our observations honest and as close to the facts as possible.

Do I believe we can ever understand anything with 100% certainty? No. But does that mean that we can't trust that the buildings we live and work in are actually real? I think not.

I mean yes, my own ideas about my house might be different from somebody else's - I might tend to like it more than my neighbor who thinks his is better, but does that mean my house and his don't actually exist as objective facts? Of course not.

And don't try to tell me you believe differently aside from in theory - I'll bet you don't question whether your car actually exists when you need to go somewhere - you probably get in and fire it up, expecting it to work just like it (usually) does. If you didn't think it was an objective reality then you wouldn't trust in it so much.

Rocks stars and planets are not evidence of the actual world/physical reality, they are features of it. Scientific Method may attempt to strip subjective experience as much as possible but we have reached a point in scientific exploration at which we have come to realize that when you strip the last bit of subjective experience from the experiment, nothing remains to be examined.

The way Einstein put it; "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."

What evidence do you have of a rock besides your subjective experience of the rock, or your subjective experience of someone else's subjective experience?

Also; don't be so presumptuous to think you know what it is I believe. The faith that I have in my car starting "like it usually does" is directly related to my subjective experience of the world (what usually happens in my experience), as is yours. Once again, I don't have any intellectual knowledge of Objective Reality and so I can only trust in it (have faith in it) through what my subjective experience tells me usually happens.

What exactly was Einstein referring to with that quote? I'm just curious what it was in relation to.

What kind of evidence would you accept for a rock's existence? No matter what kind of experiments you do on it, they all confirm that it's a rock, right? It walks like a rock, barks like a rock, farts like a rock, and even when you examine its chemical or atomic structure they'll all confirm the same thing. Yep - it's a rock.

And if other scientists do more experriments, they'll confirm. Rock. What more does it take? At that point, why question the reality of it anymore?


My main point here all along has been that there IS an objective reality, even though of course our experience of it is always going to be shaded by subjectivity. Really seems to be arguing that this objective reality is somehow less real than what he calls the subjective world. I say his 'subjective world' is actually just a complex of experiences and thoughts and emotions etc, which actually arose from the objective reality, not the other way around. The physical world was around long before we were, and we rose from it. Our bodies and brains are made of its stuff. And it's only inside those brains that we're able to create this 'subjective world'... therefore it's merely a reflection of the outside objective world.

Xaq, do you deny that stars planets and rocks existed before the human race did, and believe they're only figments of some mass hallucination that we somehow cooked up only after we came into existence? If so we did a pretty amazing job, first simply by coming into existence at all in an empty black void, and then in creating a universe with a built-in backstory (the Big Bang etc) which we in our primitive state were unable to even conceive of but would in ensuing centuries unravel slowly through science...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Why did you remove the rest of his post? You're at troll level now,

---

It was to be specific. Look at what you're saying and where it leads. The rest of that post was extraneous; i.e. it makes no difference to the point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

The world itself = physical reality.

What we know of the world = subjective experience, ideas thoughts etc.

---

Therefore, "What we know of the world" also = concept of the world being only physical.

And, if you see my earlier post on defining the "objective", that statement could mean a couple things, mainly:

1. What we know is all conceptual and this is an objective statement about the subjective.
2. What we know "objectively" is all conceptual and this is the limit of the objective world; resting in subjective knowledge.

Quote:

---

Xaq and Really, both of you seem to be confusing "what we know of the world" with the actual world. Obviously there was a world (a universe) before we were here to observe it - we are a part of it. Our physical bodies are just as real as the planets and stars.

To believe that "your ideas of what the world might be" is somehow just as real as that physical reality is solopsism.

---

I'm sorry but you're not getting any of this... I think because all of us have strong views it may seem that nobody is learning from each other, plus semantic issues. You seem to keep missing that while I have a different world view, I am also not strictly disagreeing with you; it goes without saying that I understand your entire point. Haven't you seen me elaborate on this?! And why haven't you just simply answered the questions put forth about the central issue of subjectivity?

The subjective world is not merely "experience, ideas thoughts", it is knowledge and awareness too. I want you to name a reality that exists independent of knowledge! It is impossible because if you had no knowledge, nothing would exist. You can also speculate about what it is like to be dead, but you are not dead either. All mind games. Even as you write about an independent objective world, it has flourished from an infinite number of factors that are inside your subjective, pure knowledge. A reality that was "before we existed" (as if we didn't know it) was fundamentally not a reality, but an idea about no other reality than this one.

So while the method for understanding the objective world is reliable, it is only small fraction of what is really true, and only true because coincides with the most fundamental of all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

It was to be specific. Look at what you're saying and where it leads. The rest of that post was extraneous; i.e. it makes no difference to the point.

---

Why are you so averse to engaging in a proper conversation? I just clearly showed that your implication was totally disingenuous. It's juvenile conflation and as such doesn't 'lead' anywhere. Please either stop strawmanning and engage with the actual content here, or don't converse with me.

The proposition was that we define all words via their relation to other words. I disagreed with this.

There is no reductio ad absurdum to be made, and even if you thought there was you never bothered to actually explicate it. You have no point. The meaning is clear, coherent and consistent. Address it, or don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

I want you to name a reality that exists independent of knowledge! It is impossible because if you had no knowledge, nothing would exist. You can also speculate about what it is like to be dead, but you are not dead either. All mind games. Even as you write about an independent objective world, it has flourished from an infinite number of factors that are inside your subjective, pure knowledge. A reality that was "before we existed" (as if we didn't know it) was fundamentally not a reality, but an idea about no other reality than this one.

So while the method for understanding the objective world is reliable, it is only small fraction of what is really true, and only true because coincides with the most fundamental of all.

---

Lolwut??!!

I want you to name a reality that exists independent of knowledge! ------ Sorry, but reality exists whether or not we understand exactly what it is.

if you had no knowledge, nothing would exist. ------ no, if you had no knowledge you'd have no knowledge. Reality would remain unchanged.


Ok, I agree that we're not getting anywhere, except that I have accomplished my goal of understanding how people like you think and why they continue making these preposterous statements. You're Subjectivists, who place primacy on subjective experience and seem to believe that it trumps actual reality. My curiosity has been assuaged now, and I thank you for engaging in the lengthy and frustrating conversation. We obviously disagree, but I've learned something valuable which has helped to make a few things click in my worldview that were puzzling before.

I could suggest a test that would determine how strongly you and Xaq actually believe these ideals... what if we were to stand facing each other from a good distance - say a dozen feet, and I pick up a fist-sized rock. Or as you believe an idea of a fist-sized rock. And I throw it at your head. And let's assume for purposes of this test that my throw is accurate (actually I might have to try several times.. :cheeky:).

Do you duck out of the way?

Well, do you?

This tread has gone from discussing nothingness and a variation of the cosmological argument to semantics and solipsism. This is why I get on dreamviews. Well played sirs.

I dread reading all 140 new responses that have appeared since I last read this thread.

I regret making it.

But don't lock it.

DarkMatters, your 'test' of my convictions illustrates how superficially you are thinking about the subject, as does your previous post directed at me specifically which was riddled with assertions but poorly lacking in any evidence to back up your position. If you throw a rock at me, and I hold fast and do not flinch and am struck with the rock and feel pain; even that pain is a subjective experience through which my view of reality is filtered; and if I am struck and act as though I am unfazed and perhaps even suggest that I did not feel pain or anything at all or indeed did not even perceive you to have thrown a rock in the first place, how would you prove that I was lying?

I will except any form of evidence of the rock's existence that doesn't require any person's subjective experience of the rock. Every example that you have listed so far requires that I or someone else perceive the rock or some of its effects in real time through the use of senses, which would make it subjective experience and therefore invalid as proof of its objective existence.

Superficially?

Bedrock reality is hardly superficial! You would either flinch or die (I believe I specified a fist-sized rock aimed at your head). You can't hide your death, no matter how hard you try.

I have said repeatedly that of course all of our experiences are filtered through the subjective. I think that's essentially all you're saying, except that you seem to draw the conclusion from it that what we call reality somehow IS only subjective.

Alright, I'll go this far toward meeting you in the middle - I know there's no way we can prove conclusively that reality exists or is exactly what it seems to be. I've actually argued exactly that point before somewhere on the forum.

However, my caveat is that reality has a strong tendency to remain consistent and to be what we think it is well enough to allow us to live our lives without ever having to second-guess whether things are actually what we think they are.

What I mean is, I can sit on what I perceive as a chair and I don't fall right on through it, though it might collapse, if it's a flimsy chair. In which case an examination will confirm that indeed it was made of inferior materials or had a flaw in workmanship. Other people can examine the chair and reach the same conclusion. And this is true not only for a chair but for every material object around us.

I can go online and print out a map showing me how to get to somebody's house, and if I follow it properly, even though I had no actual proof that the person exists, I can knock on the door and he will open it. If reality isn't real, then how would this be possible?

So what I'm saying is that, even though we can't absolutely prove anything, it's real enough in every way that matters. Requiring more proof than what we're able to ascertain presently is overkill, unless you're just in it for the philosophy. We have enough proof for life, and more than that we don't really need.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

You're Subjectivists, who place primacy on subjective experience and seem to believe that it trumps actual reality.

---

I never said such nonsense. Once again I have to wonder whether you read my posts or what? Doesn't seem that way. E.g. My words: "How is a label going to help you understand? This may have some parallels, but the distinction "and that there is no underlying true reality that exists independently of perception." does not apply to what I'm saying at all. You think I am denying an underlying reality by saying there are other truths too? They are part of that underlying reality and you secretly know it." The quote therein was taken from that Wikipedia page, by the way. Not sure if you knew that. In other words, forget about "subjectivism" and trumping "actual reality."

Quote:

---

I could suggest a test that would determine how strongly you and Xaq actually believe these ideals... what if we were to stand facing each other from a good distance - say a dozen feet, and I pick up a fist-sized rock. Or as you believe an idea of a fist-sized rock. And I throw it at your head. And let's assume for purposes of this test that my throw is accurate (actually I might have to try several times.. :cheeky:).

Do you duck out of the way?

Well, do you?

---

This is a test for what? AFAIK, the outcome makes no difference at all. I can suppose a whole bunch of possibilities that would be consistent with my view, and so can you. Sorry, but it's because you're missing the point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

I have said repeatedly that of course all of our experiences are filtered through the subjective. I think that's essentially all you're saying, except that you seem to draw the conclusion from it that what we call reality somehow IS only subjective.

---

I must ask, what is not "filtered" through the subjective? You say "all of our experiences are filtered", yet hesitate to admit that it is therefore fundamental to all experience; all reality. Subjectivity (see my previous posts) is the beholder of any objective reality. That "reality would remain" without a sliver of knowledge, is a hypothetical concept and is not only improvable, un-experiencable and self-refuting, but it is not fundamentally true. What is fundamentally true is what is present in all reality and existences. Furthermore, you might say "that fundamental truth is the observable scientific world", but that has been negated by "we can't absolutely prove anything".

Please answer some of my questions for once.

Quote:

---

Alright, I'll go this far toward meeting you in the middle - I know there's no way we can prove conclusively that reality exists or is exactly what it seems to be.

---

Thank you, this is the downside that ends the argument. Where your "method" ends, subjectivity persists without question. Hence it is essentially the most fundamental truth.

DarkMatters;
Saying that Reality is "real enough" is a truism and basically meaningless. Like I said earlier and you seemed to gloss over without paying much attention; it seems like you are the one that is mistaking your "ideas about reality" for actual reality. You fully admit that there is no actual evidence for this objective reality that you are talking about and yet you continue to refer to it as if it is obviously there. The fact that you cannot see your own unsupported faith for objective reality in that admittance makes me believe that your mind is closed to any other ideas.

I personally do not base my world view off of something that I don't even know how to find evidence for. I believe that something must exist but I don't claim to know what it is, and I know that my perception of it is fundamentally tied to the manner in which I perceive it; and that my perception of it is not it in itself.

Xaqaria what is your response to (you) being a "subjectivist", and following "Subjectivism" (see post #158)? The notion of reality being "real enough" was briefly mentioned in that article.

No, I was responding to Darkmatter's post #172. I am compelled to quote DarkMatters from another thread;

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkMatters

Evidence or GTFO.

---

;)

I was just asking out of curiosity, and also because it might clarify a little.

Also, I am 99% sure that is going to confuse Darkmatters whole lot more now on where you stand. :?

Ok, let me try this a different way...

What do you think reality actually is, if it's not what it seems? Do you think it's completely different from what we see, like a Matrix illusion (I don't mean to imply that you literally believe the Matrix is real, obviously, just using it as an illustration). Or do you think that maybe things are just slightly different from what they seem to be?

Or, are you only saying "we can't prove it" and that's as far as it goes?

Cause if that's all you're saying, then I'm right there with you!! We definitely can't prove it.

But until someone suggests a more plausible possibility than that what we see and feel is actually exactly what's real, then why would I or anyone entertain the idea? Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING agrees that what we perceive as reality is real... all of history, all of science, all human experience that I've ever had access to first or secondhand. If it's an illusion, then its such a damn good one that I for one am happy to live in it without asking pointless questions about it until something makes that necessary or even suggests that it's a good idea. And yes, of course I understand that everything i just mentioned comes to me only filtered through my own senses, thus is subjective, but it's all in such amazing accordance in every minute detail that if something were able to create such an amazing illusion and place me in it then that something is for all intents and purposes a god and has created an illusion so powerful and pervasive that it's pointless to not just call it a reality.

And I suppose that's my main point - How substantial would an illusion have to become before you just call it a reality?

Einstein may have said that reality is an illusion, albeit a very persistent one - but he obviously agreed with me that for all intents and purposes it's our reality, because he devoted his life to studying it.


** EDIT

.. Or are you maybe suggesting a religious or spiritual notion, like the Buddhist idea that life is essentially a dream? Come to think of it, not long ago I was trying very hard to believe that, and hoping it would help me with my efforts at lucid dreaming. Not sure when I gave up on it? I seem to have become a rational materialist again.


** 2ND EDIT

It's true that you can say, in a philosophical sense, that we have (and can have) no 'proof' of the existence of reality - although of course what proof there is is good enough to stand up in any court. But Xaq it's funny that you said I have "blind faith". Because actually I'm not blind, and sight is one of the senses I use to collect evidence. I have 5 senses, and they all agree on every count... objects are really there and amazingly persistent in their reality. Just now I picked up a wooden clothespin laying here beside my keyboard. It looks like a clothespin, feels like one, tastes like one, I can even faintly smell the wood. It makes the kind of sound it should when I rub a finger across it next to my ear. So, my faith is not only not blind, it's also not deaf nor lacking in any other sensory input. You on the other hand have not the slightest hint of any evidence that reality does not exist. All you have is a faint sliver of doubt that it does.

And there is evidence. At one point you said there's no evidence for reality. On the contrary, EVERYTHING is evidence! Every material object that passes all the tests I or anyone puts them to. They behave exactly the way they would if they were actually real! You're familiar with the term "overwhelming preponderance of evidence".. well, what we have here is well beyond that - it's 100% evidence. Everything adds to the pile of evidence. The entire universe and every object in it - including our bodies (which are objects).

So it becomes obvious that the one with blind faith is you.

But it's pretty obvious you don't actually have any such faith. Your 'belief' that reality is only an illusion is really no more than philosophical posturing. That's clear, because you interact with this reality all the time as if it were real. You make masks. Why would you go to all the trouble of making illusory masks from illusory materials if you believed none of it was real? You obviously agree with me that "if it's an illusion it's good enough to live in".

I know you'll respond to this - typing on the illusion of a keyboard on the illusory table before your illusory body. The very fact that you do says you actually on some level believe it's all real, or at least real enough. And you seem to believe I'm real enough to continue responding to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Ok, let me try this a different way...

What do you think reality actually is, if it's not what it seems?

---

It is "something" that can never be elaborately explained or proven. "What we think reality is," is by nature a projection or symbol of reality; never the pure experience itself, although the pure experience cannot exclude that.

Quote:

---

But until someone suggests a more plausible possibility than that what we see and feel is actually exactly what's real, then why would I or anyone entertain the idea? Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING agrees that what we perceive as reality is real...

---

There you go. It is all real on some level; no different than saying it is all true on some level. Somebody may suggest a more plausible possibility such as the scientific method, given the circumstance where that would be the most useful. But hopefully you can see it simply cannot wrap around all aspects of reality, and sometimes such methods are hindrance. There isn't a method to reality. An important distinction though: although perception is real, it is not the fundamental or absolute reality.

Quote:

---

And yes, of course I understand that everything i just mentioned comes to me only filtered through my own senses, thus is subjective,

---

Again, subjectivity is not merely some "filter" you persistently mention. That is a crippled conception (it has probably made this all harder to understand). Your depiction can be seen as an objective conclusion. The subjective is really the means for any conceivable object to exist - you mentioned our bodies as objects, yes, but including your senses and what is sensed, and including your thoughts as well.

We've been arguing about what is most fundamental, and that is where we begin to discuss and discard things that are unreal and illusory. It is very spiritual but can also be philosophical; depends on your orientation.

In a limited sense, many people think the material world is fundamental. Is it, then?

Ok, well it's obvious we'll never see eye to eye on this, and I won't keep pestering you about it. Neither side is going to budge in terms of either beliefs or even being able to understand the other's beliefs. Further discussion would be counter-productive and could cause heated argument, which I see no need for. So I respectfully detach myself from this conversation.

Adios gentlemen.

Well I actually thought you were onto something new, compared to your previous posts, saying things like "...you said there's no evidence for reality. On the contrary, EVERYTHING is evidence!".

This might be closer to the point than you think...