Do you think there's anything in existence which cannot be "sensed"?

[danzibr]

I was thinking about our senses and technology and whatnot.

For a fact there's plenty of stuff we can't sense with our natural senses. On the electromagnetic spectrum, the visible range is very small. I suppose we can "sense" like gamma rays because they can harm us, same for microwaves, but I don't know about radio waves.

But then we invented technology which allows to us to sense radio waves. Radios. (At least, I think... I have no clue how radio waves and radios work to be honest.)

And then there's really tiny stuff which we can't sense (well, maybe there's an argument for being able to sense certain small things, only not sight of course), then we invented microscopes.

On the opposite end, there's huge stuff that's just really far away, and we can't see it from Earth, but telescopes did the trick.

And gravity. We certainly experience gravity, I guess you could say we physically sense it. But even if not, we can see how planets and stars pull on each other.

So maybe as science and technology get better and better, we'll know all there is to know about the universe. Or maybe not? Or maybe some more educated person can come along and say we've already proven there's "stuff" in the universe which we have no way to sense, like dark matter or antimatter or something which I have little to no understanding of.

Or maybe this should go in Mad Science & Grumpy Technology.

[Frozen_Feet]

Yes.

Due to speed of light being limited, yet the universe being bigger than a sphere with a radius of age of universe times speed of light, there is an unknowably vast space that we can have no information of.

[Manga Shoggoth]

Sensing things the other side of an event horizon is pretty difficult too.

In fact, seal something in a thick lead box and you will have great difficulty sensing anything inside (the few particles that can go through thick lead are also quite difficult to detect).

[danzibr]

Yes.

Due to speed of light being limited, yet the universe being bigger than a sphere with a radius of age of universe times speed of light, there is an unknowably vast space that we can have no information of.
Oooh. Yeah, that's a good one. Maybe not impossible. I don't know much about FTL

Sensing things the other side of an event horizon is pretty difficult too.
Another good one! Theoretically impossible?

In fact, seal something in a thick lead box and you will have great difficulty sensing anything inside (the few particles that can go through thick lead are also quite difficult to detect).
Yet another good one, and I see what you mean, but I'm not sure what's inside cannot be sensed.

[Frozen_Feet]

Nothing, anywhere, even hints at the possibility of acquiring information from beyond the edge of the observable universe.

[Anonymouswizard]

On 'is there any kind of material or structure that cannot be sensed', apart from the interior of an event horizon I'd say the question is invalid (and I'm not 100% certain we won't develop a way to probe event horizons 1000000 years in the future). If we cannot sense it we cannot interact with it, and therefore it has no bearing on us (I am assuming sensing indirectly counts as sensing, so Dark Matter counts by it's gravitational effect on other things, and we might find it at some point).

On 'is there anything we won't sense', then yes, there's a lot of the universe we will likely never reach. Anything outside the observable universe, and eventually anything outside of the local group.

[Tvtyrant]

I was thinking about our senses and technology and whatnot.

For a fact there's plenty of stuff we can't sense with our natural senses. On the electromagnetic spectrum, the visible range is very small. I suppose we can "sense" like gamma rays because they can harm us, same for microwaves, but I don't know about radio waves.

But then we invented technology which allows to us to sense radio waves. Radios. (At least, I think... I have no clue how radio waves and radios work to be honest.)

And then there's really tiny stuff which we can't sense (well, maybe there's an argument for being able to sense certain small things, only not sight of course), then we invented microscopes.

On the opposite end, there's huge stuff that's just really far away, and we can't see it from Earth, but telescopes did the trick.

And gravity. We certainly experience gravity, I guess you could say we physically sense it. But even if not, we can see how planets and stars pull on each other.

So maybe as science and technology get better and better, we'll know all there is to know about the universe. Or maybe not? Or maybe some more educated person can come along and say we've already proven there's "stuff" in the universe which we have no way to sense, like dark matter or antimatter or something which I have little to no understanding of.

Or maybe this should go in Mad Science & Grumpy Technology.

Sure. Let us call them Danzibars. They experience gravity backwards, so they run away from everything else. When everything else in the universe has run out of energy they suddenly turn around and slam into each other, causing a new big bang.

Honestly if we can't test for it, it becomes a matter of faith and thus a religious issue.

[WorldAdventurer]

I was thinking about our senses and technology and whatnot.

For a fact there's plenty of stuff we can't sense with our natural senses. On the electromagnetic spectrum, the visible range is very small. I suppose we can "sense" like gamma rays because they can harm us, same for microwaves, but I don't know about radio waves.

But then we invented technology which allows to us to sense radio waves. Radios. (At least, I think... I have no clue how radio waves and radios work to be honest.)

And then there's really tiny stuff which we can't sense (well, maybe there's an argument for being able to sense certain small things, only not sight of course), then we invented microscopes.

On the opposite end, there's huge stuff that's just really far away, and we can't see it from Earth, but telescopes did the trick.

And gravity. We certainly experience gravity, I guess you could say we physically sense it. But even if not, we can see how planets and stars pull on each other.

So maybe as science and technology get better and better, we'll know all there is to know about the universe. Or maybe not? Or maybe some more educated person can come along and say we've already proven there's "stuff" in the universe which we have no way to sense, like dark matter or antimatter or something which I have little to no understanding of.

Or maybe this should go in Mad Science & Grumpy Technology.

If there is something that is unobservable then that means it would not effect our universe in any way and we could not know anything about it.

[Donnadogsoth]

We're talking about sensory prostheses relating to the intelligibility of the Universe. I propose that yes, the entire Universe is intelligible and so vulnerable to being "sensed" prosthetically. I explain.

1) A=A. Can this be refuted? Refuting it, as by saying "A does not equal A" self-detonates because it must first define A as an identity before it can then assert that it has no identity. So, we have logic on our side.

2) Principle of sufficient reason. If anything lacked a sufficient reason for being the way it is and not another way, it would be irrational. Since the entire Universe is a network of relationships and everything relates to everything else in some way, every monad (Leibniz) "reflecting" all other monads, if one thing is irrational, the entire Universe becomes irrational.

What would an irrational Universe look like? Well, it would be chaotic, and chaos here (don't talk to me about chaos theory, that's not what I'm talking about) is the absence of structure or order. An irrational, chaotic, structureless Universe would therefore lack all structure, including the structure of space-time, and so be nothingness.

Nothingness can't be generated (everything temporal changes into something else temporal), it can't be indicated (we have no precedent for "nothingness" as we cannot point anywhere in the Universe that examples "nothing"--there will be only space, or air, or gravity waves, but never "nothing"), and it can't be predicated ("nothingness" cannot have size, or duration, or even existence).

Hence, nothingness is an incoherent, inadmissible concept. The entire Universe is structured, orderly, and rational. Everything in it obeys the principle of sufficient reason. The principle of sufficient reason thus has sufficient reason to exist.

3) The human mind is capable of making discoveries of principle, by which it can transform nature and increase its survival power. The ultimate measure of this is population: the present human population of Terra today represents a 600-fold increase over the carrying capacity of the great apes. Ideas lead to technology which fructify the land.

This is relevant because it proves the Universe is understandable and will obey us if we are smart enough. The Universe, in other words, acts as though it obeyed the principle of sufficient reason, and we act as though we are capable of exploiting that action by the Universe.

4) Consequently, there is no principled reason to believe, and sound principled reason to disbelieve, that the Universe is not intelligible, and is not capable of being represented, whether literally or metaphorically, to our senses, in a way in which we could understand.

[Frozen_Feet]

If there is something that is unobservable then that means it would not effect our universe in any way and we could not know anything about it.
It's not that simple. Can't be arsed to copy-paste my Conway's Life example over from "Magic or science?" thread, so I'll try to keep this sort:

1) there can be outside-of-human-perspective operators whose effect on the universe is easily measured from their perspective, but cannot be distinquished from random noise from our perspective
2) there can have been things which influenced the universe but that we can't observe from the present, and couldn't falsify without time travel, thus rendering them inscrutable to science
3) there can be things which influence the universe yet remain unobservable because they destroy any potential observer.

Some of these can be hypothesized about, but not observed in a way that would allow accurate knowledge of them. Hence they remain objects of faith, distinct from the sensory realm.

[Vinyadan]

How much can we directly observe or sense? I think of how lab people can diagnose viral infections by how cells turn a different hue when coloured, or how we can indirectly measure the passage of neutrinos. We don't need to see neutrinos or virus to know they are there. I mean, is there a level after which direct perception becomes unimportant, since we can have knowledge of causes, results and ways of happening of a phenomenon?

[Frozen_Feet]

Direct observation is not important, as long as we have means of indirect observation. The difficulty of indirect observation may of course hinder our ability to formulate accurate knowledge of the source.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Do you know that wise people in movies question: if a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound? (Why wouldn't it?)

There could very well be stuff in existence that doesn't interact with anything that can interact with us (or with anything that can interact with anything that can etc us), but we'll literally never know. Whether it exists or not is also entirely inconsequential to us. (Except if it shows up in theoretical physics maybe, because the stuff has a single interaction it can have with normal matter and that is that a big bang is only possible if the insensible stuff is also created. But that's kind of reaching.)

[Heliomance]

Honestly, you're getting to the point where you need to give a rigorous definition of the word "exist". If something doesn't interact with the universe in any way that is even theoretically detectable, can it in fact be meaningfully said to exist?

[Frozen_Feet]

Depends. Do you consider mathematical truths to exist? Not all of them can be demonstrated with real particles, after all.

It's entirely possible, and there already are interpretations of f.ex. Quantum theory which posit such things, that the most accurate view of the universe we can make necessarily implies and entails an existence outside our ability to observe.

[WorldAdventurer]

It's not that simple. Can't be arsed to copy-paste my Conway's Life example over from "Magic or science?" thread, so I'll try to keep this sort:

1) there can be outside-of-human-perspective operators whose effect on the universe is easily measured from their perspective, but cannot be distinquished from random noise from our perspective
2) there can have been things which influenced the universe but that we can't observe from the present, and couldn't falsify without time travel, thus rendering them inscrutable to science
3) there can be things which influence the universe yet remain unobservable because they destroy any potential observer.

Some of these can be hypothesized about, but not observed in a way that would allow accurate knowledge of them. Hence they remain objects of faith, distinct from the sensory realm.

If those statements where true, we could still observe the effects of these things and found out through rational means what could possibly be causing them.

Not to mention, believing whatever you want to be true in the absence of factual information is a god of the gap fallacy.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

If something doesn't interact with the universe in any way that is even theoretically detectable, can it in fact be meaningfully said to exist?

Yes. We won't ever know about it, but it still exists. To say otherwise is rather egocentric. That's the core of the "If a tree falls in the forest and no-one hears it, did it make a noise?" koan. As far as I am concerned, it wasn't detectable (by the premise of the question), but it still existed.

Put another way: theoretically, there is no way to detect anything beyond the edge of the observable universe. To conclude from that that nothing exists beyond the observable universe feels arrogant, because it seems unlikely that we truly are at the center of the full universe. Sure, we won't ever know what exists beyond the edge, but I think it is pretty noncontroversial that other suns and planets do exist beyond it.

Grey Wolf

[Murk]

Yes. We won't ever know about it, but it still exists. To say otherwise is rather egocentric. That's the core of the "If a tree falls in the forest and no-one hears it, did it make a noise?" koan. As far as I am concerned, it wasn't detectable (by the premise of the question), but it still existed.

Put another way: theoretically, there is no way to detect anything beyond the edge of the observable universe. To conclude from that that nothing exists beyond the observable universe feels arrogant, because it seems unlikely that we truly are at the center of the full universe. Sure, we won't ever know what exists beyond the edge, but I think it is pretty noncontroversial that other suns and planets do exist beyond it.

Grey Wolf

Wouldn't that be theoretically detectable, though? Sure, we won't be able to observe it, but as you said, that would be an egocentric view. It still influences something, so in theory it would be observable, maybe not directly, maybe not by us, maybe not in practice, but theoretically yes.
I would say that anything that exists is theoretically observable (and so, if it isn't theoretically observable, it doesn't exist).

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Wouldn't that be theoretically detectable, though? Sure, we won't be able to observe it, but as you said, that would be an egocentric view. It still influences something, so in theory it would be observable, maybe not directly, maybe not by us, maybe not in practice, but theoretically yes.
I would say that anything that exists is theoretically observable (and so, if it isn't theoretically observable, it doesn't exist).

It's theoretically observable, sure, but only by observers who are also not theoretically observable. Given that according to the original logic, that would mean that they also don't exist, we are now discussing a "it's turtles all the way down" scenario where I keep pointing out "the observers, by the original logic, also don't exist, therefore neither do their observations" and you posit another set of observers to observe the observers to cause them to exist.

Or alternatively, we descend into a "what does 'theoretically' mean" offshoot. Which isn't going to end well, I don't think, because we can always theorize a way around the limits of the universe's fundamental laws ("what if we could travel beyond the edge of the universe" or "what if we could perform observations of quantum effects without affecting them"). But that would render the original statement meaningless, because by that meaning of "theoretical", everything is "theoretically" observable, and thus nothing can be said to not exist.

This is getting very philosophical, though. "Cogito, ergo sum" is ultimately the answer; only I exist, since I think. For all I "can tell" all of you are figments of my imagination and my thoughts are in a bottle in suspension. But I find that line of thought barren, all things considered.

Grey Wolf

[Telonius]

Maybe getting a bit Whovian here, but even if something has all the evidence of its existence erased, you could still reconstruct it by the hole it's left.

The real problem you're running into is the philosophical limits of empirical science. Science works on observation and measurement. If something can't be measured, it is not within the purview of science. That doesn't imply that something does or doesn't exist; it's just not testable or verifiable. If this hypothetical thing really does exists but truly can't be measured, then science isn't the right tool for the job.

[Frozen_Feet]

If those statements where true, we could still observe the effects of these things and found out through rational means what could possibly be causing them.

If you think so, you didn't understand the examples.

In the first case, the effect is there, but attempts to measure it *from our perspective* are indistinquishable from random noise. Hence we can't rationalize the cause.

In the second case we can see the effects and hypothesize causes, but we cannot falsify enough hypothesises to narrow down which really happened.

In the third case, the wave of destruction moves at the same speed as information (that is, at speed of light). No rationalization is hence possible, because the very moment it becomes possible to observe and rationalize is when the observer is destroyed.


Not to mention, believing whatever you want to be true in the absence of factual information is a god of the gap fallacy.

Sure it is. But I'm not telling you to believe whatever you want. I'm outlining three different types of effects which would both influence the universe yet remain inscrutable.

An analogue in logic and math would be the Incompleteness theory: in any complex logical system there are things which are true but cannot be proven as true from within that system. (Or alternatively, there may be false statements which cannot be disproven.)

I'm not saying it's given such phenomena exists; I'm explaining why no factual information can be gained of them whether they exist or not.

[Tvtyrant]

I think William James applies here. James argued in The Will to Believe, The Types and Varieties of Religious Experience and Pragmatism that the universal subjectivity of existence makes objective truth impossible.

Rather the most effective system is to believe the idea which is most useful. This relates to science and technology, but also to the effects of religion on the believer.

So here believing in something that cannot be detected is pragmatically false for day to day usage, and it's pragmatic truth lies with its psychological effects on the believer. As I said above, it is a purely religious discussion at this point.

[Frozen_Feet]

Not all statements of faith are religious, but yeah, your statement points to the right direction. It's all down a deep well of metaphysics from that point on.

[Donnadogsoth]

I think William James applies here. James argued in The Will to Believe, The Types and Varieties of Religious Experience and Pragmatism that the universal subjectivity of existence makes objective truth impossible.

Rather the most effective system is to believe the idea which is most useful. This relates to science and technology, but also to the effects of religion on the believer.

So here believing in something that cannot be detected is pragmatically false for day to day usage, and it's pragmatic truth lies with its psychological effects on the believer. As I said above, it is a purely religious discussion at this point.

Is his argument objectively true or not?

[Tvtyrant]

Is his argument objectively true or not?

Not. James would argue that objective truth requires axioms to define itself, he is just using a different axiom that succeeds based on the pragmatic truth structure.

In other words, definitions of truth always appear tautological, as they fulfill their own definitions.

James also goes out of his way to describe the difference between fact and truth.

[Donnadogsoth]

Not. James would argue that objective truth requires axioms to define itself, he is just using a different axiom that succeeds based on the pragmatic truth structure.

In other words, definitions of truth always appear tautological, as they fulfill their own definitions.

What the heck does all that mean?


James also goes out of his way to describe the difference between fact and truth.

Facts can exist outside of truth? What is an untrue fact? What is an unfactual truth?

[Tvtyrant]

What the heck does all that mean?



Facts can exist outside of truth? What is an untrue fact? What is an unfactual truth?

Square line relationship. It is a fact that grass is green, it is a fact that grass absorbs spectrum light, it is a fact that grass is red.

Person, scientist, color blind person. To each of those people all of these are an unchanging fact. Which one is true is dependent on utility.

An axiom is an unproved but fundamental assumption. Universality of physical laws is one that had been adopted in the last few hundred years.

[Donnadogsoth]

Square line relationship.

Unfamiliar term, Google no help, please clarify.


It is a fact that grass is green, it is a fact that grass absorbs spectrum light, it is a fact that grass is red.

Person, scientist, color blind person. To each of those people all of these are an unchanging fact. Which one is true is dependent on utility.

An axiom is an unproved but fundamental assumption. Universality of physical laws is one that had been adopted in the last few hundred years.

Hmmm. What would you say A=A is?

[Frozen_Feet]

Or to put it another way, you cannot prove objectivity, it needs to be one of the axioms from which you begin working.

Example:

1) there is an external reality
2) it is possible to achieve accurate information of this external reality

AKA empiricism.

I don't know how the guy we're talking about would axiomatize his system, but it could be something like:

1) there is an external reality
2) it is impossible to achieve information of this reality in a way that is not distorted by individual viewpoint
3) it is possible to achieve information which appears usefull to any given viewpoint.

[Tvtyrant]

Hmmm. What would you say A=A is?

A mathematic tautology. Without given values for A, the sentence is just "the thing is the same as itself."

A classic example is the definition of a line in math. A line has no thickness or height, it cannot be proven that a line is a line, it is by definition.

Now we say a line is an infinite series of overlapping points, which also lack attributes except their pointyness. When I ask for a proof that a point is a point, you slap me upside the head and say a point is a point.

Work any proof back far enough and it requires an axiom. The same is true of reality as of math.

[Donnadogsoth]

Or to put it another way, you cannot prove objectivity, it needs to be one of the axioms from which you begin working.

Example:

1) there is an external reality
2) it is possible to achieve accurate information of this external reality

AKA empiricism.

I don't know how the guy we're talking about would axiomatize his system, but it could be something like:

1) there is an external reality
2) it is impossible to achieve information of this reality in a way that is not distorted by individual viewpoint
3) it is possible to achieve information which appears usefull to any given viewpoint.

How does A=A not prove an objective reality? A=A must be true in all possible subjectivities, because there is identity in all possible subjectivities, whether those subjects recognise it or not.

Note that A=A doesn't prove anything else about the nature of external reality, such as whether other people exist, whether what we're experiencing is hallucination or accurate perception or something in between, but I there's no way to escape from Identity as a principle that applies at least to one's own self, and also necessarily to any other selves or distinct objects, including existence as a whole.

[Heliomance]

How does A=A not prove an objective reality? A=A must be true in all possible subjectivities, because there is identity in all possible subjectivities, whether those subjects recognise it or not.

Note that A=A doesn't prove anything else about the nature of external reality, such as whether other people exist, whether what we're experiencing is hallucination or accurate perception or something in between, but I there's no way to escape from Identity as a principle that applies at least to one's own self, and also necessarily to any other selves or distinct objects, including existence as a whole.

I'm fairly certain that if you dive deep enough down the group theory rabbit hole, you will find instances where A=A is not necessarily true.

[Tvtyrant]

How does A=A not prove an objective reality? A=A must be true in all possible subjectivities, because there is identity in all possible subjectivities, whether those subjects recognise it or not.

Note that A=A doesn't prove anything else about the nature of external reality, such as whether other people exist, whether what we're experiencing is hallucination or accurate perception or something in between, but I there's no way to escape from Identity as a principle that applies at least to one's own self, and also necessarily to any other selves or distinct objects, including existence as a whole.

"This statement is a lie." "A =/=A"

There, problem solved. The ability to arrange ideas can not itself be a proof, it requires either acceptance on its own basis or proof via something else. You are assuming A = A is true, because it is an axiom, but you are not proving that is true by doing so.

For instance .999_ = 1, but proving that requires accepting 1 = 1.

[Donnadogsoth]

A mathematic tautology. Without given values for A, the sentence is just "the thing is the same as itself."

It's not a needless repetition, it's an heuristic algebraic formulation of the essential principle of existence. As such A can have any value, and the result is the same: the basis for logical thought. Since it is inescapable to the reasoning mind it cannot be said to be an axiom, but, rather, a universal principle.


A classic example is the definition of a line in math. A line has no thickness or height, it cannot be proven that a line is a line, it is by definition.

Now we say a line is an infinite series of overlapping points, which also lack attributes except their pointyness. When I ask for a proof that a point is a point, you slap me upside the head and say a point is a point.

Work any proof back far enough and it requires an axiom. The same is true of reality as of math.

That's if we don't allow for constructive geometry. Start with the metaphor of most work for least action, the idea translates into a circle of most area for least perimeter. That's not an arbitrary shape, that's built into the universe like A=A. From that I can fold the circle to generate a line, and fold it again to generate a point. A line is the action of a circle folded against itself, and a point is the action of a circle folded doubly.

[Donnadogsoth]

"This statement is a lie." "A =/=A"

There, problem solved. The ability to arrange ideas can not itself be a proof, it requires either acceptance on its own basis or proof via something else. You are assuming A = A is true, because it is an axiom, but you are not proving that is true by doing so.

For instance .999_ = 1, but proving that requires accepting 1 = 1.

The statement “This statement is a lie” exists. That you can scribble a meaningless shape on the wall doesn't make that shape any less itself.

I am not assuming A=A is true but rather concluding it because there is no logical alternative.

[Frozen_Feet]

Constructive geometry does not lie outside axiomatizion either, it just has ita own axioms that need to be taken as true before any reasoning can be done.

Seriously, trying to found logic on logic is always an unprovable. This stuff is what drove Russell nuts and then lead to Gödel formulating his .
Incompleteness theorems. Any sufficiently complex logical systems runs into exact same problems.

[Tvtyrant]

The statement “This statement is a lie” exists. That you can scribble a meaningless shape on the wall doesn't make that shape any less itself.

I am not assuming A=A is true but rather concluding it because there is no logical alternative.

Of course there is. A=/= A. Getting back to the heart of the discussion, it isn't useful to accept A =/= A, so we don't. You are, in fact, making James' argument.

[Donnadogsoth]

Constructive geometry does not lie outside axiomatizion either, it just has ita own axioms that need to be taken as true before any reasoning can be done.

I'm not so sure, but I do not grasp constructive geometry well enough to argue it further, so I must leave it here.


Seriously, trying to found logic on logic is always an unprovable. This stuff is what drove Russell nuts and then lead to Gödel formulating his .
Incompleteness theorems. Any sufficiently complex logical systems runs into exact same problems.

I'm not talking about complex logical systems, I'm talking about the principle of identity, which cannot be disproved without invoking itself. Did Gödel doubt that he existed? Did he doubt the universe existed and was itself?

[Donnadogsoth]

Of course there is. A=/= A. Getting back to the heart of the discussion, it isn't useful to accept A =/= A, so we don't. You are, in fact, making James' argument.

What does A=/=A mean?

Also, jumping back,


...It is a fact that grass is green, it is a fact that grass absorbs spectrum light, it is a fact that grass is red.

Person, scientist, color blind person. To each of those people all of these are an unchanging fact. Which one is true is dependent on utility.

The grass is green to person.
The grass absorbs spectrum light to anyone who cares to measure it.
The grass is red to colour-blind person.

None of these facts contradict. All are true, just a me saying "I am happy" does not contract you saying "I am sad."

[Frozen_Feet]

Re: Gödel: no, as far as I know. But doubting one's existence is tangential to acknowledging limits of logic. Your "principle of identity" just sounds like an axiom, rather than some distinct other category. (To quote a certain webcomic: "who disproves an axiom? Certainly not I!")

[Donnadogsoth]

Re: Gödel: no, as far as I know. But doubting one's existence is tangential to acknowledging limits of logic. Your "principle of identity" just sounds like an axiom, rather than some distinct other category. (To quote a certain webcomic: "who disproves an axiom? Certainly not I!")

If you're dismissive of it then please disprove it.

[georgie_leech]

If you're dismissive of it then please disprove it.

Disprove there isn't a massless invisible teapot between the earth and the sun :smalltongue:

Less tongue in cheek, the point isn't to say that logic is wrong or false, but that there are fundamental axioms that can't be proven to be true. "Can't be proven true" =/= "disproven."

[Donnadogsoth]

Disprove there isn't a massless invisible teapot between the earth and the sun :smalltongue:

Less tongue in cheek, the point isn't to say that logic is wrong or false, but that there are fundamental axioms that can't be proven to be true. "Can't be proven true" =/= "disproven."

If pointing out that the principle of identity can't be disproved without invoking identity isn't proving it to be true, what would proving anything to be true look like?

[Tvtyrant]

If pointing out that the principle of identity can't be disproved without invoking identity isn't proving it to be true, what would proving anything to be true look like?

You can't disprove my assertion that invisible cheese wedges make up some of the dark matter in the universe either. Proof is positive, not negative.

[golentan]

Disprove there isn't a massless invisible teapot between the earth and the sun :smalltongue:

Less tongue in cheek, the point isn't to say that logic is wrong or false, but that there are fundamental axioms that can't be proven to be true. "Can't be proven true" =/= "disproven."

Total tangent, but I really hope that at some point, an astronaut or engineer for some space agency has set a teapot adrift in a stable orbit at some point in the past.

And if they haven't, I would like them to get on that please.

[Donnadogsoth]

You can't disprove my assertion that invisible cheese wedges make up some of the dark matter in the universe either. Proof is positive, not negative.

Your assertion should be classified as an hypothesis, and may well prove true.

Can you prove something positively for me so I can see the difference between positive and negative proofs?

[georgie_leech]

Your assertion should be classified as an hypothesis, and may well prove true.

Can you prove something positively for me so I can see the difference between positive and negative proofs?

Positive proofs are valid propositions made from a set of axioms. Negative proofs are showing that a proposition is inconsistent under a set of axioms. Godel pointed out that you can't really prove axioms under this framework; in every proof, there is something that acts as a given if you drill down far enough. Yes, even observations like "there exists a thing" requires something like "my senses reveal true information about the world."

[Donnadogsoth]

Positive proofs are valid propositions made from a set of axioms. Negative proofs are showing that a proposition is inconsistent under a set of axioms. Godel pointed out that you can't really prove axioms under this framework; in every proof, there is something that acts as a given if you drill down far enough. Yes, even observations like "there exists a thing" requires something like "my senses reveal true information about the world."

I have never said that logic is going to show us what is really going on, only that logic is an indisputable descriptor of real things. Even if one doubts everything, including one's own existence, the sheer fact of existence itself cannot be doubted by one of sane mind and honest disposition. On this basis we know that A=A is correct. It is not the way to all knowledge--hypothesis and experiment are vital in that endeavour--but all knowledge rests upon it.

[georgie_leech]

I have never said that logic is going to show us what is really going on, only that logic is an indispuitable descriptor of real things. Even if one doubts everything, including one's own existence, the sheer fact of existence itself cannot be doubted by one of sane mind and honest disposition. On this basis we know that A=A is correct. It is not the way to all knowledge--hypothesis and experiment are vital in that endeavour--but all knowledge rests upon it.

Bolded the bits that show you're asserting. I doubt none of these, but the point remains that they aren't proven. "Self-evident" or "obviously" don't count as proofs.

[druid91]

Depends. Do you consider mathematical truths to exist? Not all of them can be demonstrated with real particles, after all.

It's entirely possible, and there already are interpretations of f.ex. Quantum theory which posit such things, that the most accurate view of the universe we can make necessarily implies and entails an existence outside our ability to observe.

Mathematical truths can be found in the structures and activities of our brain and writings.

Indeed, scientists are forever predicting the end of their work. And then someone goes and proves them wrong. It's been a consistent pattern thus far, and so I assume it will continue long after we're all dead and gone.

[Donnadogsoth]

Bolded the bits that show you're asserting. I doubt none of these, but the point remains that they aren't proven. "Self-evident" or "obviously" don't count as proofs.

What does, in your estimation?

What do you think constitutes proof of anything?

[Frozen_Feet]

Proof is something that logically follows and can mathematically be demonstrated to follow from a set of axioms.

You can go train this with Euclidean geometry and trigonometry if you feel like it.

By contrast, when you plop down A=A (or A =/= A for that matter), you have no context by with which to evaluate it. You have to posit an entire external set of axioms which do not include A = A (or A =/= A) and then show it follows from those axioms, or you have to take the statement as given and use it as an axiom.

Anyways, this discussion is mildly bizarre, because the original meaning of "axiom" was "something so self-evident it does not need to be proven".

[Donnadogsoth]

Proof is something that logically follows and can mathematically be demonstrated to follow from a set of axioms.

You can go train this with Euclidean geometry and trigonometry if you feel like it.

By contrast, when you plop down A=A (or A =/= A for that matter), you have no context by with which to evaluate it. You have to posit an entire external set of axioms which do not include A = A (or A =/= A) and then show it follows from those axioms, or you have to take the statement as given and use it as an axiom.

Anyways, this discussion is mildly bizarre, because the original meaning of "axiom" was "something so self-evident it does not need to be proven".

How does it not logically follow that Being exists? It is impossible to argue that "Being does not exist". Who just did the arguing? What was that sound in the air? What doesn't exist? People might say "nah-ah!" to the statement "Being exists" but such people are in bad faith. A=A is the same idea, just turning into a universally applicable formula. The act of disproving it proves it. Is that an axiom or a deduction? Why would mathematics needed to prove that Being exists when its existence is inescapable?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

How does it not logically follow that Being exists?

It cannot follow logically because you did not use formal logic. You are playing semantic games where you switch between two meanings of logic. Logical proof requires application of formal logic rules, and to do that, you first need to establish axioms, such as the identity axiom. Said axioms cannot be proven via the formal logic rules.

Also, your example is terrible. You cannot (non-formal) logically deduce that because you exist, everything else exists also. A=A is an absolute statement that says that anything that exists, exists. But you cannot prove that anything exists in the first place. You cannot even prove you exist to everyone else here.

GW

[Tvtyrant]

How does it not logically follow that Being exists? It is impossible to argue that "Being does not exist". Who just did the arguing? What was that sound in the air? What doesn't exist? People might say "nah-ah!" to the statement "Being exists" but such people are in bad faith. A=A is the same idea, just turning into a universally applicable formula. The act of disproving it proves it. Is that an axiom or a deduction? Why would mathematics needed to prove that Being exists when its existence is inescapable?

I can just imagine you muttering that to an apparation in a dream. "Of course flies transform into wendigos, it naturally follows.?

[Frozen_Feet]

"How does it not logically follow that Being exists?"

Logically follow from what? There is no such thing as logic before you lay out your axioms for some system of logic.

So can you enumerate such axioms? Can prove A = A without assuming that conclusion as true from the get-go?

Because everything you've written so far suggests you can't. You're just repeating "I think things must exist, hence I conclude things exist" in various way. Everybody else would just take "things exist" as an axiom and not talk about obtuse things like proving or disproving it.

[golentan]

Donnadogsoth, if you hope to convince anyone of anything, ever, you cannot rely on proof by assertion.

"The idea of being wrong about this is anathema to me, therefore it's ludicrous to assume otherwise" is a logical fallacy.

[georgie_leech]

"How does it not logically follow that Being exists?"

Logically follow from what? There is no such thing as logic before you lay out your axioms for some system of logic.

So can you enumerate such axioms? Can prove A = A without assuming that conclusion as true from the get-go?

Because everything you've written so far suggests you can't. You're just repeating "I think things must exist, hence I conclude things exist" in various way. Everybody else would just take "things exist" as an axiom and not talk about obtuse things like proving or disproving it.

I mean, I will happily go on about this topic anyway because I find the limits of logic fascinating. But then I'll turn around and go on assuming that adding 0-values to other numbers not changing them, because I don't have any particular reason to care about coming with alternatives :smalltongue:

[Grey_Wolf_c]

go on assuming that adding 0-values to other numbers not changing them, because I don't have any particular reason to care about coming with alternatives :smalltongue:

Wait, the addition identity element is an axiom? It doesn't follow logically from the properties of addition?

GW

[Donnadogsoth]

It cannot follow logically because you did not use formal logic. You are playing semantic games where you switch between two meanings of logic. Logical proof requires application of formal logic rules, and to do that, you first need to establish axioms, such as the identity axiom. Said axioms cannot be proven via the formal logic rules.

Also, your example is terrible. You cannot (non-formal) logically deduce that because you exist, everything else exists also. A=A is an absolute statement that says that anything that exists, exists. But you cannot prove that anything exists in the first place. You cannot even prove you exist to everyone else here.

GW

No, I have not said that I deduce that because I exist, everything else exists also. I have said that Being exists, existence exists, "this whatever" that is going on, exists. Doesn't matter if it's a dream or an hallucination or a vision or an accurate map of material reality, this "it" exists. That is what I am saying. Gainsay it!

[Donnadogsoth]

Donnadogsoth, if you hope to convince anyone of anything, ever, you cannot rely on proof by assertion.

"The idea of being wrong about this is anathema to me, therefore it's ludicrous to assume otherwise" is a logical fallacy.

See my response to Grey_Wolf_c, above. Gainsay "Being exists".

[Grey_Wolf_c]

No, I have not said that I deduce that because I exist, everything else exists also. I have said that Being exists, existence exists, "this whatever" that is going on, exists. Doesn't matter if it's a dream or an hallucination or a vision or an accurate map of material reality, this "it" exists. That is what I am saying. Gainsay it!

See:

Donnadogsoth, if you hope to convince anyone of anything, ever, you cannot rely on proof by assertion.

"The idea of being wrong about this is anathema to me, therefore it's ludicrous to assume otherwise" is a logical fallacy.

You cannot prove that "Being exists" or that "existence exists". Especially if you cannot distinguish between "hallucination or a vision or an accurate map of material reality", which you can't. All that you have is an increasingly shrill declaration from personal conviction/assertion, which is as golentan correctly points out, a fallacy.

GW

[Donnadogsoth]

"How does it not logically follow that Being exists?"

Logically follow from what? There is no such thing as logic before you lay out your axioms for some system of logic.

So can you enumerate such axioms? Can prove A = A without assuming that conclusion as true from the get-go?

Because everything you've written so far suggests you can't. You're just repeating "I think things must exist, hence I conclude things exist" in various way. Everybody else would just take "things exist" as an axiom and not talk about obtuse things like proving or disproving it.

Look at it another way. "Nothing exists" is a contradictory statement. "Nothing" cannot have predicates to it and therefore cannot have "exists" next to it. Ergo the only possible option is that "nothing does not exist," in other words that "something exists."

"Something exists" starts from a brute fact: existence! from which we ask, can this possibly not exist? It doesn't matter if we are being subjective, or presume it's all a dream, or what have you. We find that nothing can't exist, and so something must exist.

And another way to look at it is existence, or something, or Being, cannot be refuted, as by saying "Being doesn't exist". Who just did the saying? What is being said? What are those words over there that read "Being doesn't exist"? All of these are screaming "existence!" and what do we mean by "existence" if not what those people or meanings or utterances or the objects they are pointing to?

[Donnadogsoth]

See:


You cannot prove that "Being exists" or that "existence exists". Especially if you cannot distinguish between "hallucination or a vision or an accurate map of material reality", which you can't. All that you have is an increasingly shrill declaration from personal conviction/assertion, which is as golentan correctly points out, a fallacy.

GW

Distinguishing between hallucination or a vision or an accurate map of material reality is irrelevant. All that is at issue here is whether or not "Being exists" can be disproved logically. It cannot, because to say "being doesn't exist" is to use Being to destroy Being, thereby proving Being exists. If logic (which is what "Being exists" essentially is) cannot be disproved, then it is proved. If a thing is not false, it is true, in the realm of logic at least. The nature of logic doesn't give us any option to say "it's not false but it might not be true."

Repeating from above: Look at it another way. "Nothing exists" is a contradictory statement. "Nothing" cannot have predicates to it and therefore cannot have "exists" next to it. Ergo the only possible option is that "nothing does not exist," in other words that "something exists."

[georgie_leech]

Wait, the addition identity element is an axiom? It doesn't follow logically from the properties of addition?

GW

I think it follows from set theory but not straight arithmetic? I dunno, I just grabbed one of the axioms on this page
(http://www.aaamath.com/ac41.htm) because it has been a while since I thought about them.

[golentan]

Look at it another way. "Nothing exists" is a contradictory statement. "Nothing" cannot have predicates to it and therefore cannot have "exists" next to it. Ergo the only possible option is that "nothing does not exist," in other words that "something exists."

"Something exists" starts from a brute fact: existence! from which we ask, can this possibly not exist? It doesn't matter if we are being subjective, or presume it's all a dream, or what have you. We find that nothing can't exist, and so something must exist.

And another way to look at it is existence, or something, or Being, cannot be refuted, as by saying "Being doesn't exist". Who just did the saying? What is being said? What are those words over there that read "Being doesn't exist"? All of these are screaming "existence!" and what do we mean by "existence" if not what those people or meanings or utterances or the objects they are pointing to?

Define "Being." Define "Something." Define "Existence."

Do something to present your axiom as not an axiom, or accept that it is just an axiom and not subject to debate. It's a fine axiom. It's used in many logical models. But it's an axiom. You can't assume the end you want and work backwards, and your axiom cannot be the endpoint in your logical proof, or you're falling into tautology.

And you know what they say about tautology club. The first rule of Tautology club is the first rule of tautology club.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Distinguishing between hallucination or a vision or an accurate map of material reality is irrelevant.

False. It is extremely relevant. In fact, it is the core of the issue here: that you are stating you can somehow logically deduce that existence exists, without being able to logically describe existence. This is what your current position looks like in formal logic

E: Existence
A: Hallucination
B: Vision
C: Accurate map of material reality

Premise: E = (A | B | C)
Conclusion: E = E

Note that that conclusion does not, in fact, follow from the premise.


All that is at issue here is whether or not "Being exists" can be disproved logically. It cannot, because to say "being doesn't exist" is to use Being to destroy Being, thereby proving Being exists. If logic (which is what "Being exists" essentially is) cannot be disproved, then it is proved.

False. We are back to you now having to prove that a teapot doesn't exist in an orbit around Jupiter. The statement "I cannot prove !A, therefore A" is nonsensical in the face of it.


"Nothing exists" is a contradictory statement.
Says you. But since all you have is your word, and not any kind of actual formal proof, it remains just your word. If we take you at your word without proof, then it's an axiom.

Also, I formally and politely direct you to the Forum Rules (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1).

GW

[Donnadogsoth]

Define "Being." Define "Something." Define "Existence."

Do something to present your axiom as not an axiom, or accept that it is just an axiom and not subject to debate. It's a fine axiom. It's used in many logical models. But it's an axiom. You can't assume the end you want and work backwards, and your axiom cannot be the endpoint in your logical proof, or you're falling into tautology.

And you know what they say about tautology club. The first rule of Tautology club is the first rule of tautology club.

You're in front of a screen right now, reading these words. That's Being, something, existence. If it isn't, what exactly do those words mean to you?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

You're in front of a screen right now, reading these words.

Prove it.

GW

[Donnadogsoth]

False. It is extremely relevant. In fact, it is the core of the issue here: that you are stating you can somehow logically deduce that existence exists, without being able to logically describe existence. This is what your current position looks like in formal logic

E: Existence
A: Hallucination
B: Vision
C: Accurate map of material reality

Premise: E = (A | B | C)
Conclusion: E = E

Note that that conclusion does not, in fact, follow from the premise.

No, it is not. Whether a kiwi is real or a wax facsimile makes no difference to the fact that the kiwi exists. So it is with hallucination, vision, or accurate maps of material reality: all exist. Point to something that doesn't exist.


False. We are back to you now having to prove that a teapot doesn't exist in an orbit around Jupiter. The statement "I cannot prove !A, therefore A" is nonsensical in the face of it.

No, it is true if the teapot encompasses all possible manifestations, which is what Being does. There is no conceivable alternative to Being existing, to existence existing.


Says you. But since all you have is your word, and not any kind of actual formal proof, it remains just your word. If we take you at your word without proof, then it's an axiom.

How can pure nothingness have predicates?

[golentan]

You're in front of a screen right now, reading these words. That's Being, something, existence. If it isn't, what exactly do those words mean to you?

Ever been to a thesis defense? I've been to a number, usually supporting my loved ones, sometimes sitting in when my parents couldn't get a babysitter when I was about knee high to a grasshopper. Gonna share with you a piece of advice my dad gave a really upset student in one of the latter cases: Even if you're right, it's not on me to prove you wrong. You're the one making sweeping assertions about the nature of being, so it's on you to prove your methodology, terminology, and grasp of the material is sound.

There are whole schools of philosophy and science which have spent centuries trying to determine the nature of being. Or even if you can say there is existence at all (some philosophers wrestle with that one a LOT). You expect me to give you a participation trophy for using tautology to scream about how you don't like the alternatives to your understanding of the universe?

If you insist your position is based in logic, demonstrate it. If it's purely rhetorical... Well, then it's just rhetoric, and I'd invite you to be more convincing than simply saying "It's obviously true" over and over.

[georgie_leech]

Just to clarify, the point isn't to say that "existence is a thing" is a bad axiom, or that there are strong alternatives, just that you can't use axioms to prove themselves. At best you can use proof by contradiction to show if alternative axioms are consistent within your framework. Like, the proof by contradiction offered above doesn't prove that stuff exists, just that "existence isn't a thing" is inconsistent with the axiom "existence is a thing." It's always possible that you're just failing to imagine an alternative, after all.

[Donnadogsoth]

Prove it.

GW

That's a bad faith question. You are perfectly aware that you are reading these words on a screen in front of you right now, and you're using superscepticism to try to deflect attention from the question of A=A. It doesn't matter what particular configuration existence is taking at any give time, all that matters for this question is that existence exists and that there is no alternative to that fact. Or do you have an alternative you can point to?

[Donnadogsoth]

Ever been to a thesis defense? I've been to a number, usually supporting my loved ones, sometimes sitting in when my parents couldn't get a babysitter when I was about knee high to a grasshopper. Gonna share with you a piece of advice my dad gave a really upset student in one of the latter cases: Even if you're right, it's not on me to prove you wrong. You're the one making sweeping assertions about the nature of being, so it's on you to prove your methodology, terminology, and grasp of the material is sound.

There are whole schools of philosophy and science which have spent centuries trying to determine the nature of being. Or even if you can say there is existence at all (some philosophers wrestle with that one a LOT). You expect me to give you a participation trophy for using tautology to scream about how you don't like the alternatives to your understanding of the universe?

If you insist your position is based in logic, demonstrate it. If it's purely rhetorical... Well, then it's just rhetoric, and I'd invite you to be more convincing than simply saying "It's obviously true" over and over.

What do you mean by these words? What possible "nature of being" includes being not existing?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

No, it is not. Whether a kiwi is real or a wax facsimile makes no difference to the fact that the kiwi exists. So it is with hallucination, vision, or accurate maps of material reality: all exist.
Every time you simply assert something like "reality exist" you are establishing an axiom. Don't just state that they do. Prove that they do.

ETA: also, pick one. "hallucination, vision, or accurate maps of material reality" is not good enough for proof of existence, because they re are infinite other alternatives. Which one is it?


Point to something that doesn't exist.
I'm not the one claiming that axioms don't exist. I don't need to prove anything to you. I am quite content in accepting axioms.


No, it is true if the teapot encompasses all possible manifestations, which is what Being does. There is no conceivable alternative to Being existing, to existence existing.
Cute wordplay. Meaningless in formal logic.


How can pure nothingness have predicates?
Because you need them for formal logic. Which is needed to logically deduce something. Which You have yet to do about existence.


That's a bad faith question. You are perfectly aware that you are reading these words on a screen in front of you right now, and you're using superscepticism to try to deflect attention from the question of A=A. It doesn't matter what particular configuration existence is taking at any give time, all that matters for this question is that existence exists and that there is no alternative to that fact. Or do you have an alternative you can point to?
No, I am trying to make you see that you have not provided proof of anything yet. I am trying to make you see that all you have is assertion. That you are telling me, not proving, that I exist. I.e. that you are using an axiom.

GW

[georgie_leech]

That's a bad faith question. You are perfectly aware that you are reading these words on a screen in front of you right now, and you're using superscepticism to try to deflect attention from the question of A=A. It doesn't matter what particular configuration existence is taking at any give time, all that matters for this question is that existence exists and that there is no alternative to that fact. Or do you have an alternative you can point to?

http://i.imgur.com/RCDz7rp.jpg

[Donnadogsoth]

Just to clarify, the point isn't to say that "existence is a thing" is a bad axiom, or that there are strong alternatives, just that you can't use axioms to prove themselves. At best you can use proof by contradiction to show if alternative axioms are consistent within your framework. Like, the proof by contradiction offered above doesn't prove that stuff exists, just that "existence isn't a thing" is inconsistent with the axiom "existence is a thing." It's always possible that you're just failing to imagine an alternative, after all.

I'm fully aware of the alternative, georgie. It's nothing. If existence doesn't exist, then nothing must exist. But "exist" is a predicate that cannot be applied to "nothing" just like any other predicate cannot be applied to "nothing". To do so would make nothing real which would be to apply the quality of Being to it. This contradicts and therefore cannot be so. Nothing can "be so" outside of "Being" and therefore Being is inescapably real.

[Donnadogsoth]

http://i.imgur.com/RCDz7rp.jpg

It's an irrelevant question, georgie; your meme is disqualified.

[Donnadogsoth]

Every time you simply assert something like "reality exist" you are establishing an axiom. Don't just state that they do. Prove that they do.

ETA: also, pick one. "hallucination, vision, or accurate maps of material reality" is not good enough for proof of existence, because they re are infinite other alternatives. Which one is it?


I'm not the one claiming that axioms don't exist. I don't need to prove anything to you. I am quite content in accepting axioms.


Cute wordplay. Meaningless in formal logic.


Because you need them for formal logic. Which is needed to logically deduce something. Which You have yet to do about existence.


No, I am trying to make you see that you have not provided proof of anything yet. I am trying to make you see that all you have is assertion. That you are telling me, not proving, that I exist. I.e. that you are using an axiom.

GW

Blah, blah, blah. Please provide an alternative to Being that is not "nothing exists" which of course contradicts.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Blah, blah, blah.
Very mature.


Please provide an alternative to Being that is not "nothing exists" which of course contradicts.

Says you. Which is, again, an axiom. You haven't proved it.

It is trivially easy to imagine a scenario in which nothing exists. You simply seem to lack the imagination.

Also, again, faced with a challenge you cannot meet (to prove any of your assertions) you fall back on the childish "you do the work, 'cause I can't"

I don't need to do the work. I am not the one saying that axioms don't exist. I can simply state "an alternative exist" and build on it a fully internally consistent logical statement.

You, on the other hand, keep using axioms, and then attempting to say they aren't axioms at all, but can't in fact prove any of them (because, surprise surprise, they are axioms).

GW

[Donnadogsoth]

Says you. Which is, again, an axiom. You haven't proved it.

It is trivially easy to imagine a scenario in which nothing exists. You simply seem to lack the imagination.

Also, again, faced with a challenge you cannot meet (to prove any of your assertions) you fall back on the childish "you do the work, 'cause I can't"

I don't need to do the work. I am not the one saying that axioms don't exist. I can simply state "an alternative exist" and build on it a fully internally consistent logical statement.

You, on the other hand, keep using axioms, and then attempting to say they aren't axioms at all, but can't in fact prove any of them (because, surprise surprise, they are axioms).

GW

Please explain how “nothing exists” doesn't contradict.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Please explain how “nothing exists” doesn't contradict.

As a logic statement, it is a valid axiomatic statement:

E: Existence

Statement: !E

Now, please prove that you are not using an axiom when you say "existence exists".

GW

[danzibr]

I didn't think this thread would devolve into a discussion of proving "existence exists."

[Teddy]

That's a bad faith question. You are perfectly aware that you are reading these words on a screen in front of you right now, and you're using superscepticism to try to deflect attention from the question of A=A. It doesn't matter what particular configuration existence is taking at any give time, all that matters for this question is that existence exists and that there is no alternative to that fact. Or do you have an alternative you can point to?

You say that we can logically deduct that A = A without having to rely in axioms? Well, that would require that over all possible values of A in all possible spaces1, A will always be identical to itself. So, let's see if we can create a space where this doesn't hold true.

Let's build our space around the range of real numbers from zero to infinity, inclusive, and let's say that in this space, the only mathematical operation possible is multiplication. Finally, let's say that all operations performed within this space must result in a single value.

Now, let's see if we can find some adversarial example which makes it impossible to define an equivalence relationship on this set. Multiplication is pretty well-behaved, but both zero and infinity have the curious property that any multiplication involving them will result in whichever one was used, regardless of the other value. This still doesn't cause any problems, except:

0 · ∞

According to what I said above, this expression should take on both the value 0 and the value ∞ (actually, it should take on every value inbetween too, but I didn't allow for division in this space so arguing for why that is requires some extra steps), but also according to what I said above, it has to take on a singular value. Since I wasn't kind enough to define a tie breaker for this multiplication, the internal logic forces it to be arbitrary. And suddenly we can't define an equivalence relationship, because an arbitrary value isn't equal to an arbitrary value. I.e. the relationship 0 · ∞ = 0 · ∞ doesn't necessarily hold true, because 0 = ∞ isn't true. Mind you, it isn't necessarily false either, it's just undefined.

And this is where the axiom comes in. In order to conclude that A = A, you need to make some assumptions about the nature of A, like for example that no two unequal things can share the same description.

1I'm probably not using the mathematical definition of space correctly, given that it was years since I studied this kind of mathematic, and Wikipedia's page on mathematical space is too obtuse to understand without dedicated study.

[Donnadogsoth]

As a logic statement, it is a valid axiomatic statement:

E: Existence

Statement: !E

No, don't be a logician, be a human being. If a statement contradicts itself, and it doesn't provoke the mind to a higher principle, it is gibberish. "Nothing exists" is gibberish.


Now, please prove that you are not using an axiom when you say "existence exists".

GW

I'm not interested in logic as a discipline, I'm interested in ontology. You're trying to ensnare me into saying that A=A is a axiom as a "proposition assumed without proof". It is impossible to deny Being without contradicting and thereby spouting gibberish.

You can't use logic to try to disprove what I am saying about A=A, without assuming the validity of logic. Your argumentation and logicianship are a demonstration that it is impossible to debunk the existence of existence.

[Donnadogsoth]

I didn't think this thread would devolve into a discussion of proving "existence exists."

Amazing times we live in, isn't it?

[Razade]

I'm not interested in logic as a discipline

Preach it brother! First honest thing you've said. Never been more proud of you.

[Donnadogsoth]

You say that we can logically deduct that A = A without having to rely in axioms? Well, that would require that over all possible values of A in all possible spaces1, A will always be identical to itself. So, let's see if we can create a space where this doesn't hold true.

Let's build our space around the range of real numbers from zero to infinity, inclusive, and let's say that in this space, the only mathematical operation possible is multiplication. Finally, let's say that all operations performed within this space must result in a single value.

Now, let's see if we can find some adversarial example which makes it impossible to define an equivalence relationship on this set. Multiplication is pretty well-behaved, but both zero and infinity have the curious property that any multiplication involving them will result in whichever one was used, regardless of the other value. This still doesn't cause any problems, except:

0 · ∞

According to what I said above, this expression should take on both the value 0 and the value ∞ (actually, it should take on every value inbetween too, but I didn't allow for division in this space so arguing for why that is requires some extra steps), but also according to what I said above, it has to take on a singular value. Since I wasn't kind enough to define a tie breaker for this multiplication, the internal logic forces it to be arbitrary. And suddenly we can't define an equivalence relationship, because an arbitrary value isn't equal to an arbitrary value. I.e. the relationship 0 · ∞ = 0 · ∞ doesn't necessarily hold true, because 0 = ∞ isn't true. Mind you, it isn't necessarily false either, it's just undefined.

And this is where the axiom comes in. In order to conclude that A = A, you need to make some assumptions about the nature of A, like for example that no two unequal things can share the same description.

1I'm probably not using the mathematical definition of space correctly, given that it was years since I studied this kind of mathematic, and Wikipedia's page on mathematical space is too obtuse to understand without dedicated study.

More logician talk, trying to use logic and math to debunk the very basis for logic and math. Nothing you can say will prevent "nothing exists" from being a contradiction and therefore gibberish, and your attempts to snow me and everyone else into thinking that existence doesn't necessarily exist will fail, at least among people of sense. I hear the cola lacks fizz in Flatland, too.

[druid91]

It cannot follow logically because you did not use formal logic. You are playing semantic games where you switch between two meanings of logic. Logical proof requires application of formal logic rules, and to do that, you first need to establish axioms, such as the identity axiom. Said axioms cannot be proven via the formal logic rules.

Also, your example is terrible. You cannot (non-formal) logically deduce that because you exist, everything else exists also. A=A is an absolute statement that says that anything that exists, exists. But you cannot prove that anything exists in the first place. You cannot even prove you exist to everyone else here.

GW

The asking of the question is proof enough.

[golentan]

As an example of how something might not exist, for a baseline definition of existence I will say it must at some level have ontological inertia (I.E. it doesn't stop existing when you look away), and behave with internal consistency.

Ever have a fever dream? Hypoxic blackout? Anything of the sort? A lot of the time, such things are accompanied by weird pastiches of sensorially realistic sensations and concepts (one of my favorites was a man whose airplane locked into a high-G death spiral. His recounting of the events was he was at his neighborhood grocery reaching for a milk bottle right until he grabbed it, the G-forces eased and he "woke up" and realized he was flying and presumably had been for some time, and the milk bottle was his rudder control). No internal consistency, but things seem to follow one from the other in the moment. Prove that's not happening, right now.

Furthermore, I remember a time before waking up this morning, but there was a definite moment waking up where I gained consciousness. And this evening, I fully expect to lose consciousness. How am I to prove that I didn't come into existence this morning, only to perish this evening? How do I prove that I or anything around me has ontological inertia.

Since you have failed to define existence, perhaps you can use my definition. So... prove you exist. Prove your life is not a hallucinatory lie told by a mayfly to comfort itself, for no rhyme or purpose, before slipping back into an endless chaos of nonexistence.

Or give us a credible definition, or a proof that isn't a logical fallacy.

[druid91]

As an example of how something might not exist, for a baseline definition of existence I will say it must at some level have ontological inertia (I.E. it doesn't stop existing when you look away), and behave with internal consistency.

Ever have a fever dream? Hypoxic blackout? Anything of the sort? A lot of the time, such things are accompanied by weird pastiches of sensorially realistic sensations and concepts (one of my favorites was a man whose airplane locked into a high-G death spiral. His recounting of the events was he was at his neighborhood grocery reaching for a milk bottle right until he grabbed it, the G-forces eased and he "woke up" and realized he was flying and presumably had been for some time, and the milk bottle was his rudder control). No internal consistency, but things seem to follow one from the other in the moment. Prove that's not happening, right now.

Furthermore, I remember a time before waking up this morning, but there was a definite moment waking up where I gained consciousness. And this evening, I fully expect to lose consciousness. How am I to prove that I didn't come into existence this morning, only to perish this evening? How do I prove that I or anything around me has ontological inertia.

Since you have failed to define existence, perhaps you can use my definition. So... prove you exist. Prove your life is not a hallucinatory lie told by a mayfly to comfort itself, for no rhyme or purpose, before slipping back into an endless chaos of nonexistence.

Or give us a credible definition, or a proof that isn't a logical fallacy.

If you didn't exist, I wouldn't be reading these words. Whether you exist once I look away or not doesn't matter. Right now, you exist. If I were to blink and find that GITP and it's forums were nothing more than some elaborate hallucination I'd been having and none of it was ever real, that doesn't mean that right now you do not exist.

You add qualifiers in your attempts to define what doesn't need any further definition.

[georgie_leech]

Again, it's fine to have axioms, and we're not trying to insist otherwise. But one of the limitations of axioms is they can't be proved within the system they apply to. We can't use the fundamental axioms of algebra to prove the Multiplicative Identity, [ z(x+y)=zx+zy] because it's one of the pieces that we use to prove everything else. This isn't about denying existence or asserting that A=/=A, just showing how axioms aren't proven, but assumed. Usually with plenty of good reason. You can even have systems with different axioms that would be inconsostent with each other. Parallel lines never meeting gets us Euclidean Geometry; Parallel lines diverging or converging gets us geometry that more closely rembles the curved space we live in.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

The asking of the question is proof enough.

False. I might be imagining all this. That I imagined someone asking a question doesn't prove someone other than me exists.


If you didn't exist, I wouldn't be reading these words. Whether you exist once I look away or not doesn't matter. Right now, you exist. If I were to blink and find that GITP and it's forums were nothing more than some elaborate hallucination I'd been having and none of it was ever real, that doesn't mean that right now you do not exist.

"You only exist within a hallucination" is a weird definition of "existence" which I'm going to need you to substantiate. No definition of existence I can think of includes for figments of the imagination.

Also, before we go any further, what is your position on axioms? Can they be proven?

GW

[golentan]

If you didn't exist, I wouldn't be reading these words. Whether you exist once I look away or not doesn't matter. Right now, you exist. If I were to blink and find that GITP and it's forums were nothing more than some elaborate hallucination I'd been having and none of it was ever real, that doesn't mean that right now you do not exist.

You add qualifiers in your attempts to define what doesn't need any further definition.

Which is clearly a different definition from the one I supplied. My definition is axiomatic at the root of what I understand "existence" to be. And you can't convince me that if I stopped existing because you stopped paying attention that I existed in the first place. Because you're working from a different set of definitions, and by refusing to acknowledge that and assuming your definition is the right one, you have halted any meaningful conversation before it began.

Now do you understand why definition fights and axiomatic assertion is ridiculous?

[georgie_leech]

False. I might be imagining all this. That I imagined someone asking a question doesn't prove someone other than me exists.

GW

Strictly speaking it doesn't prove you exist to yourself either. There could be an alternative you haven't imagined yet, and the apparent lack of alternatives a reflection of our ignorance rather than a core fundamemtal of reality. "Cogito ergo sum" may be a famous axiom, but it's an axiom nonetheless :smallwink:

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Strictly speaking it doesn't prove you exist to yourself either. There could be an alternative you haven't imagined yet, and the apparent lack of alternatives a reflection of our ignorance rather than a core fundamemtal of reality. "Cogito ergo sum" may be a famous axiom, but it's an axiom nonetheless :smallwink:

Indeed. But it is easier for me to defend that you are all figments of the imagination than that we are all figments of someone else's imagination. Philosophy is not my strongest area of knowledge. I gotta pick the hills I am reasonably certain I know how to defend and all that.

GW

[danzibr]

Amazing times we live in, isn't it?
Indeed :P

The recent part of this thread made me realize people don't know what = means. At least, the mathematical definition. Here ya go:

Given a set X, call ~ a subset of XxX an equivalence relation provided (x,x) is in ~ for all x in X, if (x,y) is in ~ then (y,x) is in ~ for all x,y in X, and if (x,y) and (y,z) are in ~ then (x,z) is in ~ for all x,y,z in X. Also, if (x,y) is in ~, write x~y. In brief, x~x, x~y => y~x, and x~y & y~z => x~z.

There are lots of equivalence relations out there. Like metrics producing the same topology, or functions differing only a set of measure 0.

= is a particular equivalence relation (on whatever set you're interested in). That first property, x~x, becomes x=x. And this is true for every x you're interested in. Ever.

To question A=A (regardless of A) is to not understand =.

[georgie_leech]

Indeed :P

The recent part of this thread made me realize people don't know what = means. At least, the mathematical definition. Here ya go:

Given a set X, call ~ a subset of XxX an equivalence relation provided (x,x) is in ~ for all x in X, if (x,y) is in ~ then (y,x) is in ~ for all x,y in X, and if (x,y) and (y,z) are in ~ then (x,z) is in ~ for all x,y,z in X. Also, if (x,y) is in ~, write x~y. In brief, x~x, x~y => y~x, and x~y & y~z => x~z.

There are lots of equivalence relations out there. Like metrics producing the same topology, or functions differing only a set of measure 0.

= is a particular equivalence relation (on whatever set you're interested in). That first property, x~x, becomes x=x. And this is true for every x you're interested in. Ever.

To question A=A (regardless of A) is to not understand =.

Yes, in set theory the notation would be different, because set theory has a few different axioms than the basic algebra we've been using as an example. But look to your own example: a set being a subset of itself is one of the axioms of set theory, not something that can be derived from or proven by the other axioms.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Indeed :P

The recent part of this thread made me realize people don't know what = means. At least, the mathematical definition. Here ya go:

Given a set X, call ~ a subset of XxX an equivalence relation provided (x,x) is in ~ for all x in X, if (x,y) is in ~ then (y,x) is in ~ for all x,y in X, and if (x,y) and (y,z) are in ~ then (x,z) is in ~ for all x,y,z in X. Also, if (x,y) is in ~, write x~y. In brief, x~x, x~y => y~x, and x~y & y~z => x~z.

There are lots of equivalence relations out there. Like metrics producing the same topology, or functions differing only a set of measure 0.

= is a particular equivalence relation (on whatever set you're interested in). That first property, x~x, becomes x=x. And this is true for every x you're interested in. Ever.

To question A=A (regardless of A) is to not understand =.

Can you prove that two sets are equal (are the same set) if they have the same elements? Because it seems rather central to the proof above, as far as I can understand what you are talking about.

GW

[danzibr]

Yes, in set theory the notation would be different, because set theory has a few different axioms than the basic algebra we've been using as an example. But look to your own example: a set being a subset of itself is one of the axioms of set theory, not something that can be derived from or proven by the other axioms.

Can you prove that two sets are equal (are the same set) if they have the same elements? Because it seems rather central to the proof above, as far as I can understand what you are talking about.

GW
I fear you two misunderstand me.

I'm not proving anything. This is merely a definition of =. It doesn't matter what A is, A=A is true by definition of =.

[georgie_leech]

I fear you two misunderstand me.

I'm not proving anything. This is merely a definition of =. It doesn't matter what A is, A=A is true by definition of =.

See, that's what I mean. Something that is defined as true is something that is taken as a given. In other words, that's an axiom.

[Tvtyrant]

I fear you two misunderstand me.

I'm not proving anything. This is merely a definition of =. It doesn't matter what A is, A=A is true by definition of =.

No, that isn't the point at all. Saying A = A is no categorically different than saying A = B, except that A = A is foundational. Yes, a thing is equivalent to itself, but you use that to prove other things. The foundation itself is not proved, it is definitional.

So if I say 1=1, then I demonstrate that 1=.999_, I either proved 1=/=1, or that 1=.9999_.

So it is an axiom, it defines other things. It itself is true on its own merits.

[danzibr]

See, that's what I mean. Something that is defined as true is something that is taken as a given. In other words, that's an axiom.
I guess we're using different definitions of axiom. Some things are true axiomatically, some things are true by definition (and of course, there are many other ways statements can be true EDIT: really, I guess all else comes from axioms and definitions, but this is digressing).

In my mind, they are separate.

I can see how someone with a... different background might not not distinguish the two.

No, that isn't the point at all. Saying A = A is no categorically different than saying A = B, except that A = A is foundational. Yes, a thing is equivalent to itself, but you use that to prove other things. The foundation itself is not proved, it is definitional.

So if I say 1=1, then I demonstrate that 1=.999_, I either proved 1=/=1, or that 1=.9999_.

So it is an axiom, it defines other things. It itself is true on its own merits.
...

What isn't the point of what? All I'm saying is A=A is always true. That's the beginning and end of my statement. I'm not going anywhere with it.

You even say, "it is definitional." This is what I'm saying.

[georgie_leech]

See, when I hear "definitional," I hear "bescause we said it was that way." Which matches up with "the things we say are true" that comes along with "axioms." I'm not familiar with any particularly divergent definitions; was there a particuoar difference you wanted to emphasize?

[druid91]

Which is clearly a different definition from the one I supplied. My definition is axiomatic at the root of what I understand "existence" to be. And you can't convince me that if I stopped existing because you stopped paying attention that I existed in the first place. Because you're working from a different set of definitions, and by refusing to acknowledge that and assuming your definition is the right one, you have halted any meaningful conversation before it began.

Now do you understand why definition fights and axiomatic assertion is ridiculous?

Not really. Because you start at the axiom that Axioms are inherently arbitrary and thus pointless to discuss.

Axioms can be important to discuss in and of themselves. For example, if we were to simply randomly choose one of our axioms to discuss, how would it then follow that anything meaningful has been communicated? We still stand upon entirely different foundations.

[golentan]

Not really. Because you start at the axiom that Axioms are inherently arbitrary and thus pointless to discuss.

Axioms can be important to discuss in and of themselves. For example, if we were to simply randomly choose one of our axioms to discuss, how would it then follow that anything meaningful has been communicated? We still stand upon entirely different foundations.

No, I start with the understanding that axioms are based in either experience or arbitration, and are worth discussing when they conflict with each other/the observable universe (See also: Principle of Explosion) or to resolve miscommunication.

They're absolutely worthless to discuss when it boils down to "Nuh-uh," vs "Yuh-huh."

Hence my fierce determination that Donnadogsoth do one of A) Provide his own definition that is not tautological for his terms given his insistence that things are a proof not an axiom, B) Accept other people's definitions in order to clearly communicate, or C) Sit on his hands until he has something useful to say rather than spinning the Wheel of Tautology for another cycle.

I even provided my own working definition of "exist" in the interests of resolving potential miscommunication. To which your response as I understand it was, and I may be paraphrasing here... "Nuh-uh."

[Tvtyrant]

...

What isn't the point of what? All I'm saying is A=A is always true. That's the beginning and end of my statement. I'm not going anywhere with it.

You even say, "it is definitional." This is what I'm saying.

Which is the definition of an axiom.

To get back to the point of this conversation, James was arguing that believing in something that had no effect was meaningless.

[danzibr]

See, when I hear "definitional," I hear "bescause we said it was that way." Which matches up with "the things we say are true" that comes along with "axioms." I'm not familiar with any particularly divergent definitions; was there a particuoar difference you wanted to emphasize?

Which is the definition of an axiom.
Perhaps I've taken too much math.

When I think axioms, I think the axioms upon which Set Theory are founded, the Axiom of Choice, a whole bunch more axioms.

When I hear something is true axiomatically, I think it exactly follows from an axiom. No logic necessary. Well, perhaps minimal logic.

For true by definition... I surely don't need to state this.

So when you (Tvtyrant) say "the definition of an axiom," I wonder what definition you're using. A good ol' common English definition from dictionary.com maybe, but it certainly doesn't feel like a very math-y one. Or maybe something in logic? I've taken a lot of math, but little else.

Yeah, when someone says A=A is true axiomatically, I wonder what axioms are at work.

[Donnadogsoth]

As an example of how something might not exist, for a baseline definition of existence I will say it must at some level have ontological inertia (I.E. it doesn't stop existing when you look away), and behave with internal consistency.

Ever have a fever dream? Hypoxic blackout? Anything of the sort? A lot of the time, such things are accompanied by weird pastiches of sensorially realistic sensations and concepts (one of my favorites was a man whose airplane locked into a high-G death spiral. His recounting of the events was he was at his neighborhood grocery reaching for a milk bottle right until he grabbed it, the G-forces eased and he "woke up" and realized he was flying and presumably had been for some time, and the milk bottle was his rudder control). No internal consistency, but things seem to follow one from the other in the moment. Prove that's not happening, right now.

Furthermore, I remember a time before waking up this morning, but there was a definite moment waking up where I gained consciousness. And this evening, I fully expect to lose consciousness. How am I to prove that I didn't come into existence this morning, only to perish this evening? How do I prove that I or anything around me has ontological inertia.

Since you have failed to define existence, perhaps you can use my definition. So... prove you exist. Prove your life is not a hallucinatory lie told by a mayfly to comfort itself, for no rhyme or purpose, before slipping back into an endless chaos of nonexistence.

Or give us a credible definition, or a proof that isn't a logical fallacy.

None of what you refer to matters here. Existence is anything other than nothing. The specifics are not relevant here. Everything you have said is existence, existence, existence: mayflies, airplanes, going to bed, etc.. Please try again.

[Donnadogsoth]

Again, it's fine to have axioms, and we're not trying to insist otherwise. But one of the limitations of axioms is they can't be proved within the system they apply to. We can't use the fundamental axioms of algebra to prove the Multiplicative Identity, [ z(x+y)=zx+zy] because it's one of the pieces that we use to prove everything else. This isn't about denying existence or asserting that A=/=A, just showing how axioms aren't proven, but assumed. Usually with plenty of good reason. You can even have systems with different axioms that would be inconsostent with each other. Parallel lines never meeting gets us Euclidean Geometry; Parallel lines diverging or converging gets us geometry that more closely rembles the curved space we live in.

The principle of identity, A=A isn't an axiom in the sense of being an assumption, any more than a dromedary in your living room is an assumption. It's a fact. And, if we question why this fact is so, we find that it is impossible to have it otherwise. We're stuck with the blasted dromedary no matter how much we squint our eyes or crawl about on the floor or make arguments about how "Well, we can't really prove that dromedaries are real, now can we?"

[Frozen_Feet]

This discussion's not really moving. But I came in to remark that I find this whole "nothing does not exists is a contradiction!" to be completely unpersuasive, and wrong.

Reason: translated to my language, "no thing does not exist!" is not a logical contradiction which could be used to prove or disprove anything. It's either linguistically incorrect double negative (meaning the sentence is meaningless) or flat assertion equivalent to "something exists!"

If someone wants to disagree, they are free to analyze the statements "mitään ei ole" ja "ei mitään ei ole".

So in that respect, I feel Donna's argument is based on a quirk or misuse of a particular language. Which means Donna is accepting axioms of some language. The task I leave to Donna is, again, to enumerate those axioms.

[Teddy]

See, when I hear "definitional," I hear "bescause we said it was that way." Which matches up with "the things we say are true" that comes along with "axioms." I'm not familiar with any particularly divergent definitions; was there a particuoar difference you wanted to emphasize?

Which is the definition of an axiom.

The definition of relations themselves aren't axioms, because a relation is just an observation of the properties of two items when compared to one another. The named relation classes (such as the equivalence relations) are simply sets we have created from all relations satisfying certain criteria, not sets we define a priori to seeing the items we're supposed to compare. Relations aren't axioms, but the existence of any relations within a set of items is dependent on those items having some properties. For example, the existence of an equivalence relation on the items within a set depends on every item within the set being comparable to itself. Asserting that every item within the set is comparable to itself, however, is an axiom.

[Frozen_Feet]

Mathematical truths can be found in the structures and activities of our brain and writings.

That would get into the discussion of whether math is invented or discovered, but it's a really far cry from what I was talking about.

I was talking of things like "the most parsimonous version of the most accurate mathematical representation of reality necessarily entails parallel universes which we can neither observe nor interact with".

Claiming such mathematical truths exists as thought or writing is obtuse. We're talking about entire alternate universes entailed by math. There are mathematical proofs of this one which would take more matter to write down than there is available in the observable universe.


Indeed, scientists are forever predicting the end of their work. And then someone goes and proves them wrong. It's been a consistent pattern thus far, and so I assume it will continue long after we're all dead and gone.

It's really only been a pattern for maybe 200 years so I wouldn't have huge confidence in it. "Forever" really has no place here.

[Donnadogsoth]

This discussion's not really moving. But I came in to remark that I find this whole "nothing does not exists is a contradiction!" to be completely unpersuasive, and wrong.

Reason: translated to my language, "no thing does not exist!" is not a logical contradiction which could be used to prove or disprove anything. It's either linguistically incorrect double negative (meaning the sentence is meaningless) or flat assertion equivalent to "something exists!"

If someone wants to disagree, they are free to analyze the statements "mitään ei ole" ja "ei mitään ei ole".

So in that respect, I feel Donna's argument is based on a quirk or misuse of a particular language. Which means Donna is accepting axioms of some language. The task I leave to Donna is, again, to enumerate those axioms.

Does this discussion exist? Do you exist? In what way can we say that nothing exists?

How can "no thing" in your terms, partake of Being?

[Frozen_Feet]

Does this discussion exist? Do you exist?
In what way can we say that nothing exists?

MU.

Your questions rests on unproven assertion that we exists and are saying things.

This sentence is not proof of itself.


How can "no thing" in your terms, partake of Being?

It does not. That's sort of the point. "No thing" specifies lack. It is equivalent to "thing does not exist", that is, "thing does not partake of Being".

You might as well be asking "how can zero be positive?" or "how much does zero add to one?"

[Fawkes]

None of this exists. You only think it does.

[Donnadogsoth]

MU.

Your questions rests on unproven assertion that we exists and are saying things.

This sentence is not proof of itself.



It does not. That's sort of the point. "No thing" specifies lack. It is equivalent to "thing does not exist", that is, "thing does not partake of Being".

You might as well be asking "how can zero be positive?" or "how much does zero add to one?"

If "no thing" cannot partake of Being, then "no thing" cannot exist, which means there is no alternative but for "thing" to exist. What that thing is, is beyond the scope of this thread.

[eggynack]

How can "no thing" in your terms, partake of Being?
You're doing nothing more than playing semantic games here. It's on the same level of claim as, "It makes no sense to say there's a jumbo shrimp. How can a shrimp partake of jumboness?" You can pretty easily restate the phrase "nothing exists" in a way which retains the original intended meaning but which doesn't ring of self-contradiction. For example, "There exists no object." Or, perhaps, "For all objects of whom one might ask, 'does this exist?' the answer is no."

Moreover, these claims have simple correspondence with something that makes easy intuitive sense. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that everything is more or less as it seems. I exist, you exist, and the couch I'm sitting on exists. Now, let's consider an alternate universe. For each object, taken one by one from those existing in our universe, let's assume it does not exist in the alternate universe. There's a chair opposite me here, so there is not one there. There's a bunch of protons all over my shirt, but those aren't there at all in the alternate universe. And, of course, we're not adding anything to that universe either. Now, let's get rid of the universe we're in. All there is is that alternate universe. Within the context of this universe, we could easily say, "Nothing exists." Or, y'know, we could if we existed. Reality here is composed of nothing.

[Donnadogsoth]

You're doing nothing more than playing semantic games here. It's on the same level of claim as, "It makes no sense to say there's a jumbo shrimp. How can a shrimp partake of jumboness?"

The same way Venus can partake of largerness when compared with Mercury, and smallerness when compared with Sol.


You can pretty easily restate the phrase "nothing exists" in a way which retains the original intended meaning but which doesn't ring of self-contradiction. For example, "There exists no object." Or, perhaps, "For all objects of whom one might ask, 'does this exist?' the answer is no."

"There exists no object" is again referring to a circumstance lacking in Being, yet is referring to that circumstance as though it were true and therefore possessed of Being.

"For all objects of whom one might ask, 'does this exist?' the answer is no" is doing likewise.


Moreover, these claims have simple correspondence with something that makes easy intuitive sense. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that everything is more or less as it seems. I exist, you exist, and the couch I'm sitting on exists. Now, let's consider an alternate universe. For each object, taken one by one from those existing in our universe, let's assume it does not exist in the alternate universe. There's a chair opposite me here, so there is not one there. There's a bunch of protons all over my shirt, but those aren't there at all in the alternate universe. And, of course, we're not adding anything to that universe either. Now, let's get rid of the universe we're in. All there is is that alternate universe. Within the context of this universe, we could easily say, "Nothing exists." Or, y'know, we could if we existed. Reality here is composed of nothing.

"Alternate universe"? What the hell is that?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

If "no thing" cannot partake of Being, then "no thing" cannot exist

I cannot figure out if this is better classified as a circular argument fallacy (where he defined "Being" as "something that must exist") or an Appeal to Personal Authority fallacy, where he really expects everyone else to accept his premise because he says so.

But then, he already admitted he is not actually intending to use logic or provide proof, so all he has got is just tiresome repetition of his "Things must exist, because I can't imagine the alternative", and somehow denying that such an assumption is therefore an axiom.

GW

[eggynack]

The same way Venus can partake of largerness when compared with Mercury, and smallerness when compared with Sol.
But shrimp means small, and jumbo means big. So jumbo shrimp means big small, which is irreconcilable. Thus, jumbo shrimp cannot, and do not, exist.



"There exists no object" is again referring to a circumstance lacking in Being, yet is referring to that circumstance as though it were true and therefore possessed of Being.
No, it's not. For example, I can say, "There exists no unicorn standing in front of me." By your logic, this statement is fundamentally illogical, meaning that there must, in fact, be a unicorn standing in front of me.


"For all objects of whom one might ask, 'does this exist?' the answer is no" is doing likewise.
Not at all. I'm referring to these things as though they could or could not be true. Does some particular object exist? The answer, in any particular case, could be yes, or it could be no. Not everything exists.


"Alternate universe"? What the hell is that?
A hypothetical universe that is identical to our own but for some quality that I lay forth in the context of the hypothetical. Least that's what I mean when using it.

[Frozen_Feet]

As I tried pointing out, Donna's "proof by contradiction" rests on artefact of language.

Nowhere was this more apparent than when they asked "to point at nothing" as if that's some big damn impossibility. But "point at nothing" is synonymous to "do not point at anything", which reduces to "do not point".

So by that metric, everyone who did nothing in response to Donna's argument won the thread.

(I would expect Donna to now argue meaning of the verb "point". That would actually be progress in this case.)

Related, this:


If "no thing" cannot partake of Being, then "no thing" cannot exist, which means there is no alternative but for "thing" to exist.

Is still not a proof by contradiction. It is, again, either using a double negative to assert something exists, or linguistically inadmissible nonsense.

Contrast and compare:

"If a thing that does not partake in Being cannot partake in being, then thing that does not partake in Being cannot exist, which means there is no alternative but for the thing to exist."

Formatting for emphasis.

The underlined part is the same as the first two sentences of Donna's argument, just with "nothing" written out for what it means. It should be apparent to all that there is no contradiction there. Likewise, it should be apparent to all that the bolded part is a gigantic non-sequitur.

Or to put it even more simply, Donna's argument rests on English language sometimes treating "nothing" as "something", yet not acknowledging that this does not actually mean that "nothing" is "something".

He might as well be arguing that since math uses Zero like a number, it ought to add to One, but since it does not, by logic of elimination it must detract from One instead! Completely forgetting that Zero needs to neither add nor detract from anything.

[Donnadogsoth]

I cannot figure out if this is better classified as a circular argument fallacy (where he defined "Being" as "something that must exist") or an Appeal to Personal Authority fallacy, where he really expects everyone else to accept his premise because he says so.

But then, he already admitted he is not actually intending to use logic or provide proof, so all he has got is just tiresome repetition of his "Things must exist, because I can't imagine the alternative", and somehow denying that such an assumption is therefore an axiom.

GW

I cannot figure out whether people who think Being is not an irreducible fact are taking the P*** or are genuinely confused. This might have something to do with the general bent of this forum towards super-scepticism, materialism, and statistical probability.

The alternative to Being is Non-Being. However, if Non-Being is real it partakes of Being by definition, and therefore is no longer Non-Being.

[Donnadogsoth]

But shrimp means small, and jumbo means big. So jumbo shrimp means big small, which is irreconcilable. Thus, jumbo shrimp cannot, and do not, exist.

Small and big are relative terms. You, on this relativist forum of all places, must grasp that. You're confusing the term "shrimp" as in "small thing" with "shrimp" as in "edible crustacean of family caridea".


.No, it's not. For example, I can say, "There exists no unicorn standing in front of me." By your logic, this statement is fundamentally illogical, meaning that there must, in fact, be a unicorn standing in front of me.

No, your statement, and any other you care to make, still partakes of Being. There is a context you are supplying “standing in front of me” which you are taking for granted while pretending to demonstrate the non-existence of Being. It's Being all the way down, folks.


Not at all. I'm referring to these things as though they could or could not be true. Does some particular object exist? The answer, in any particular case, could be yes, or it could be no. Not everything exists.

See above. You're using this “does some particular object exist?” always, inevitably, invariably, in terms of a context, which means Being exists.


A hypothetical universe that is identical to our own but for some quality that I lay forth in the context of the hypothetical. Least that's what I mean when using it.

Not interested in your fantasies.

[Donnadogsoth]

As I tried pointing out, Donna's "proof by contradiction" rests on artefact of language.

Nowhere was this more apparent than when they asked "to point at nothing" as if that's some big damn impossibility. But "point at nothing" is synonymous to "do not point at anything", which reduces to "do not point".

So by that metric, everyone who did nothing in response to Donna's argument won the thread.

(I would expect Donna to now argue meaning of the verb "point". That would actually be progress in this case.)

Related, this:



Is still not a proof by contradiction. It is, again, either using a double negative to assert something exists, or linguistically inadmissible nonsense.

Contrast and compare:

"If a thing that does not partake in Being cannot partake in being, then thing that does not partake in Being cannot exist, which means there is no alternative but for the thing to exist."

Formatting for emphasis.

The underlined part is the same as the first two sentences of Donna's argument, just with "nothing" written out for what it means. It should be apparent to all that there is no contradiction there. Likewise, it should be apparent to all that the bolded part is a gigantic non-sequitur.

Or to put it even more simply, Donna's argument rests on English language sometimes treating "nothing" as "something", yet not acknowledging that this does not actually mean that "nothing" is "something".

He might as well be arguing that since math uses Zero like a number, it ought to add to One, but since it does not, by logic of elimination it must detract from One instead! Completely forgetting that Zero needs to neither add nor detract from anything.

Please demonstrate how Being can not exist.

[georgie_leech]

Please demonstrate how Being can not exist.

I direct you to the previous discussion you dismissed as fantasy. It's not a knock-down argument when you dismiss the people doing what you asked.

[Donnadogsoth]

I direct you to the previous discussion you dismissed as fantasy. It's not a knock-down argument when you dismiss the people doing what you asked.

Oh, the one about adjunctive universes? Guffaw! When I use "universe" I refer to "everything temporally existing". I have no need of, nor will tolerate, any alternate definition of "universe". There are no "alternate" universes, there is just "The Universe" however big or strangely shaped. But, if that makes people uncomfortable, then don't talk about the Universe, talk about Being, and get rid of Being! Prove that Being doesn't exist, without relying on contexts or fantasies about disappearing objects from some part of Being as if Ouroboros can eat himself into nonexistence.

[Fawkes]

Oh, the one about adjunctive universes? Guffaw! When I use "universe" I refer to "everything temporally existing". I have no need of, nor will tolerate, any alternate definition of "universe". There are no "alternate" universes, there is just "The Universe" however big or strangely shaped. But, if that makes people uncomfortable, then don't talk about the Universe, talk about Being, and get rid of Being! Prove that Being doesn't exist, without relying on contexts or fantasies about disappearing objects from some part of Being as if Ouroboros can eat himself into nonexistence.

I don't think so, therefore there isn't. Cogito ergo none.

[eggynack]

Small and big are relative terms. You, on this relativist forum of all places, must grasp that. You're confusing the term "shrimp" as in "small thing" with "shrimp" as in "edible crustacean of family caridea".
So what you're saying, and I might be insane in saying this, is that a pair of words that in conjunction may seem internally contradictory can actually just be making use of some alternate definitions, and that asserting existence or non-existence from semantic games with specific definitions is ridiculous. Weird.



No, your statement, and any other you care to make, still partakes of Being. There is a context you are supplying “standing in front of me” which you are taking for granted while pretending to demonstrate the non-existence of Being. It's Being all the way down, folks.
Unless the statement does not exist. Which it may not. You have no proof it does. It's axioms all the way down.



See above. You're using this “does some particular object exist?” always, inevitably, invariably, in terms of a context, which means Being exists.
No, because that context may be the context of nothingness. Nothingness existing within nothingness, because there's nothing.



Not interested in your fantasies.
It's not a fantasy. It's a hypothetical. You're essentially claiming that it's physically impossible for there to be nothing. I'm stating, quite plainly, that we can trivially imagine a scenario in which there is, in fact, nothing. This means there is no illogic intrinsic to the statement that there isn't anything in existence.


Oh, the one about adjunctive universes? Guffaw! When I use "universe" I refer to "everything temporally existing". I have no need of, nor will tolerate, any alternate definition of "universe".
You need not tolerate an alternate definition of universe. The end-state of my hypothetical is a scenario which matches your definition precisely. My alternate universe still refers to everything temporally existing. However, the set of everything that temporally exists is null.

[danzibr]

We might (?) be able to imagine a scenario where nothing exists, but that is not our scenario.

[Donnadogsoth]

So what you're saying, and I might be insane in saying this, is that a pair of words that in conjunction may seem internally contradictory can actually just be making use of some alternate definitions, and that asserting existence or non-existence from semantic games with specific definitions is ridiculous. Weird.

Everyone knows there can be larger and smaller shrimp, and that compared to a sturgeon egg a shrimp may be large, and compared to an octopus a shrimp may be small. Don't get hung up on the fact that the word "shrimp" has taken an additional meaning of "very small."


Unless the statement does not exist. Which it may not. You have no proof it does. It's axioms all the way down.

Look at what you're saying: It's, a contraction of "it is" which indicates something participating in Being.


No, because that context may be the context of nothingness. Nothingness existing within nothingness, because there's nothing.

Again: because there's nothing, "there's" is a contraction of "there is" where "is" refers to something participating in Being.


It's not a fantasy. It's a hypothetical. You're essentially claiming that it's physically impossible for there to be nothing. I'm stating, quite plainly, that we can trivially imagine a scenario in which there is, in fact, nothing. This means there is no illogic intrinsic to the statement that there isn't anything in existence.

Except that someone had to make the statement, making it false.


You need not tolerate an alternate definition of universe. The end-state of my hypothetical is a scenario which matches your definition precisely. My alternate universe still refers to everything temporally existing. However, the set of everything that temporally exists is null.

We can imagine a universe that contains nothing except Being, but beyond that we can conceive no further. Absolute nothingness--by which I use a simile such as "no salad left in the bowl" or "no one at the office"--strictly speaking cannot be conceived of; not in the sense that we might not understand Fermat's Last Theorem or whatever, but in the sense that it is inconceivable in principle and therefore gibberish. Saying "nothing exists" is saying something with no truth value.

[warty goblin]

We can imagine a universe that contains nothing except Being, but beyond that we can conceive no further. Absolute nothingness--by which I use a simile such as "no salad left in the bowl" or "no one at the office"--strictly speaking cannot be conceived of; not in the sense that we might not understand Fermat's Last Theorem or whatever, but in the sense that it is inconceivable in principle and therefore gibberish. Saying "nothing exists" is saying something with no truth value.
Speak for yourself. I don't find anything particularly incomprehensible about absolutely nothing existing.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

We might (?) be able to imagine a scenario where nothing exists, but that is not our scenario.

It was before the Big Bang, and it will be after the heat death of the universe. Like Pratchett put it: the universe is composed almost entirely of nothing with a trace of hydrogen

Furthermore, there is no way to prove that anything actually does exist. It could all be a hallucination. We assume that reality does exist, but there is no way to prove it - i.e. existence is axiomatic.

Grey Wolf

[danzibr]

It was before the Big Bang, and it will be after the heat death of the universe. Like Pratchett put it: the universe is composed almost entirely of nothing with a trace of hydrogen

Furthermore, there is no way to prove that anything actually does exist. It could all be a hallucination. We assume that reality does exist, but there is no way to prove it - i.e. existence is axiomatic.

Grey Wolf
I'm not sure I really understand "before the Big Bang."

I'll have to look into he heat death of the universe.

And you know for sure you exist. What you are, that's a mystery, but there's something.

[Donnadogsoth]

Speak for yourself. I don't find anything particularly incomprehensible about absolutely nothing existing.

There is no comprehension without an object being comprehended. Regardless of how rarefied that object may be, it remains the subject of your comprehension and therefore partakes of Being.

[eggynack]

Everyone knows there can be larger and smaller shrimp, and that compared to a sturgeon egg a shrimp may be large, and compared to an octopus a shrimp may be small. Don't get hung up on the fact that the word "shrimp" has taken an additional meaning of "very small."
Precisely. Words, to put it bluntly, have multiple definitions in different contexts. You're hung up on the idea that nothing existing is some self-contradictory notion because nothing by its very nature does not exist. But that's just you getting caught in a pedantic trap. It's a bit challenging to say, "There is nothing," in a way that doesn't produce this oddity, but that oddity does not represent a contradiction. Especially because you can narrow it down, maintain the oddity, but still refer to something readily apparent in the real world. For example, "There is nothing in this box." It is presumably possible to construct a box with nothing in it, though we may need to make the inaccurate assumption that some arbitrary particle or dark matter is not within it. Or, better yet, "There is nothing in this set." {}. There ya go. Not in the mood to look up the null symbol, but you can imagine it in there, representing nothing, if you like. It is a logical and self consistent sentence that produces this self-same oddity.



Look at what you're saying: It's, a contraction of "it is" which indicates something participating in Being.
A general baseline assumption of life is that there is stuff. That this situation is a thing that actually exists rather than a mass illusion. Thus, most discussion will, external to the discussion itself, make this assumption. I'll sometimes point to a situation and say, "Hey, look at this situation." That doesn't mean, in any sense, that the assumption is an accurate one. I could be wrong about it.




Again: because there's nothing, "there's" is a contraction of "there is" where "is" refers to something participating in Being.
And, in this circumstance, nothing is participating in being. There isn't any matter. Semantics are great and all, but they don't tell us overmuch about the nature of the universe.



Except that someone had to make the statement, making it false.
Just cause no one is around to say something, that doesn't make it false. A square still has four sides when no one is commenting on it. Do you think squares spontaneously form a fifth side when everyone on Earth stops thinking about or looking at squares?



We can imagine a universe that contains nothing except Being, but beyond that we can conceive no further. Absolute nothingness--by which I use a simile such as "no salad left in the bowl" or "no one at the office"--strictly speaking cannot be conceived of; not in the sense that we might not understand Fermat's Last Theorem or whatever, but in the sense that it is inconceivable in principle and therefore gibberish. Saying "nothing exists" is saying something with no truth value.
Seems pretty conceivable in principle to me. I, who may or may not exist, am conceiving of it right now. Moreover, whether we can conceive of something or not has no bearing on its possible existence.

[Donnadogsoth]

It was before the Big Bang, and it will be after the heat death of the universe. Like Pratchett put it: the universe is composed almost entirely of nothing with a trace of hydrogen

After the so-called, supposed "Heat Death" there will continue to be space, and time, and matter, and energy, just no useful energy to speak of, and this will continue forever.


Furthermore, there is no way to prove that anything actually does exist. It could all be a hallucination. We assume that reality does exist, but there is no way to prove it - i.e. existence is axiomatic.

Grey Wolf

Hallucinations are not nothing. They are hallucinations, which are real hallucinations. False hallucinations are not noticeable. We assume that the world we inhabit is material and not hallucinogenic, but either way it exists.

[Razade]

It was before the Big Bang, and it will be after the heat death of the universe. Like Pratchett put it: the universe is composed almost entirely of nothing with a trace of hydrogen

Well discounting who the hell cares what a fantasy author has to say on the state of the Universe...I think it's interesting that you're willing to use a term like "Before the Big Bang" but then want to go on with the "no proof" for existence track. While I agree there's no defeater for hard solipsism...it's a little absurd to argue the point that whatever you're experience isn't in fact existence. It's the only existence you have. Might as well treat it as such.


I'm not sure I really understand "before the Big Bang."

I've been, mostly, with Gray Wolf up to this point. Saying "before the Big Bang" isn't something they can prove. There may not have been anything before the Big Bang...since "before" implies time and...there might not have been time before the Big Bang.

[Donnadogsoth]

Precisely. Words, to put it bluntly, have multiple definitions in different contexts. You're hung up on the idea that nothing existing is some self-contradictory notion because nothing by its very nature does not exist. But that's just you getting caught in a pedantic trap. It's a bit challenging to say, "There is nothing," in a way that doesn't produce this oddity, but that oddity does not represent a contradiction. Especially because you can narrow it down, maintain the oddity, but still refer to something readily apparent in the real world. For example, "There is nothing in this box." It is presumably possible to construct a box with nothing in it, though we may need to make the inaccurate assumption that some arbitrary particle or dark matter is not within it. Or, better yet, "There is nothing in this set." {}. There ya go. Not in the mood to look up the null symbol, but you can imagine it in there, representing nothing, if you like. It is a logical and self consistent sentence that produces this self-same oddity.

You're getting caught on using examples of things in which there is nothing associated with them, like a truck carrying nothing, or a box with nothing in it, or a mathematical concept—and presuming that these things, all of which exist in the examples and have the context of Being and participate in Being can have their associate-nothings be analogous to Being itself, in which they all would necessarily participate.

Our concept of nothing derives exclusively from the substitution of an undetectable thing for a detectable one. From this we extrapolate in terms of categories, that there is nothing in a given category, such as "no books on the shelf", and we thereby get a universal concept of nothing. This nothing however is dripping in Being, so when we turn to apply it to Being itself we find we have no intelligible precedent, and contradict ourselves by trying to reify absolute nothingness. We are simply mashing squares and circles together and announcing we have discovered square circles.

Nothing, like evil and cold, is not an ontologically positive thing but just a privation.


A general baseline assumption of life is that there is stuff. That this situation is a thing that actually exists rather than a mass illusion. Thus, most discussion will, external to the discussion itself, make this assumption. I'll sometimes point to a situation and say, "Hey, look at this situation." That doesn't mean, in any sense, that the assumption is an accurate one. I could be wrong about it.*

A mass illusion would still be a thing.


And, in this circumstance, nothing is participating in being. There isn't any matter. Semantics are great and all, but they don't tell us overmuch about the nature of the universe.

“Context of nothingness” is a non sequitur. “Nothing” cannot be a context. “What's the context?” “There is no context”. Not “empty space going on forever” like something out of your favourite science fiction programme, but “nothing” as in “no context", which is impossible.

For you to say “nothingness existing within nothingness” is to make an assertion about the character of cosmology. “Character” is a thing, not a nothing, thus your statement contradicts.


Just cause no one is around to say something, that doesn't make it false. A square still has four sides when no one is commenting on it. Do you think squares spontaneously form a fifth side when everyone on Earth stops thinking about or looking at squares?

You're right. A square still has four sides when no one is commenting on it. A square still has four sides even when nothing temporal exists, including visible squares, space, time, or mathematicians. Nevertheless the nature of the square exists and that is not and can never be nothing.


Seems pretty conceivable in principle to me. I, who may or may not exist, am conceiving of it right now. Moreover, whether we can conceive of something or not has no bearing on its possible existence.

If we cannot conceive of something in principle, it does not exist. We may be unable to conceive of something in practice, through whatever debility or circumstance, but strictly speaking a thing which is inconceivable in principle is unintelligible and when referring to it we have not referred to anything but a confused admixture of half-thoughts.

[eggynack]

You're getting caught on using examples of things in which there is nothing associated with them, like a truck carrying nothing, or a box with nothing in it, or a mathematical concept—and presuming that these things, all of which exist in the examples and have the context of Being and participate in Being can have their associate-nothings be analogous to Being itself, in which they all would necessarily participate.

Our concept of nothing derives exclusively from the substitution of an undetectable thing for a detectable one. From this we extrapolate in terms of categories, that there is nothing in a given category, such as "no books on the shelf", and we thereby get a universal concept of nothing. This nothing however is dripping in Being, so when we turn to apply it to Being itself we find we have no intelligible precedent, and contradict ourselves by trying to reify absolute nothingness. We are simply mashing squares and circles together and announcing we have discovered square circles.
No, our concept of nothing derives from the substitution of a non-existent thing for an existent one. If we apply this concept to everything, then there is nothing. And it doesn't matter if we have an intelligible conception of nothing. My capacities are not the measuring stick for philosophical truth.



A mass illusion would still be a thing.

Yes, but it's not necessarily a thing that exists in this construct.


“Context of nothingness” is a non sequitur. “Nothing” cannot be a context. “What's the context?” “There is no context”. Not “empty space going on forever” like something out of your favourite science fiction programme, but “nothing” as in “no context", which is impossible.

For you to say “nothingness existing within nothingness” is to make an assertion about the character of cosmology. “Character” is a thing, not a nothing, thus your statement contradicts.
It does not contradict. The claim would be that there is no cosmology, or that whatever cosmology that exists lacks any and all character. It is your assumption that there is any sort of character.



You're right. A square still has four sides when no one is commenting on it. A square still has four sides even when nothing temporal exists, including visible squares, space, time, or mathematicians. Nevertheless the nature of the square exists and that is not and can never be nothing.
You're claiming with no proof whatsoever that mathematical concepts are a necessary quality of the universe. It's a claim you're going to need proof for.



If we cannot conceive of something in principle, it does not exist.
Not remotely true. Provably untrue. Such is the incompleteness of first order logic. We know for an absolute fact that there exist true things that cannot be proved, and thus that there is inconceivable truth.

[Bohandas]

Nothing, anywhere, even hints at the possibility of acquiring information from beyond the edge of the observable universe.

What about the alcubierre metric?

In any case, my answer for things that cannot be sensed is phenomena occurring on a scale smaller than the planck length

[Donnadogsoth]

No, our concept of nothing derives from the substitution of a non-existent thing for an existent one. If we apply this concept to everything, then there is nothing. And it doesn't matter if we have an intelligible conception of nothing. My capacities are not the measuring stick for philosophical truth.

If you apply “nothing” to a situation such as “no butter” you are identifying that there is a physical situation, as of air and space substituted for butter. That's where you're getting "nothing" from and now you're trying to use it to attack itself.


Yes, but it's not necessarily a thing that exists in this construct.

I don't know what construct you are referring to. I am referring to the fact that a mass illusion is still a real thing, is a real mass illusion, and therefore is not nothing.


It does not contradict. The claim would be that there is no cosmology, or that whatever cosmology that exists lacks any and all character. It is your assumption that there is any sort of character.

Lacking character is itself a character. Again, you are attempting to extrapolate into the Totality your childhood experiences of finishing your mush and finding nothing left in the bowl.


You're claiming with no proof whatsoever that mathematical concepts are a necessary quality of the universe. It's a claim you're going to need proof for.

A logical truth remains true regardless of who knows about it. This means that there is a stratum of existence that is aeternal.

This means that A=A as a logical statement remains true regardless of who knows about it, and regardless of whether anything else exists. The fact of its truth exists and therefore partakes of Being. Thus, we have Being and Truth which are necessary existences.


Not remotely true. Provably untrue. Such is the incompleteness of first order logic. We know for an absolute fact that there exist true things that cannot be proved, and thus that there is inconceivable truth.

Jump to the end: Being itself is inconceivable in its totality but it is still touchable by human reason. We can conceive that it is. As to logical fancies, well, I hear set theory holds paradoxes like the Barber Paradox.

[Frozen_Feet]

Please demonstrate how Being can not exist.

I won't because that's not what I'm here to do. I said it already: everybody else in this thread is willing to accept existence as an axiom, as something so foundational that it needs neither to be proven nor disproven.

I'm here to demonstrate a problem with your logic, specifically your use of English language. Your turtle defense doesn't even begin to address that.

Your fixation on the verb "is" in the sentence "there is nothing" is another nonsense argument from your part. Because the sentence includes negation of that verb. "There is nothing" is synonymous to "there is no thing". You're just compounding "no" and "thing" to linguistically treat them like something and then pretending it is meaningfull when it is not. It's the same thing as when you asked people to "point at nothing".

---


What about the alcubierre metric?

Would require exotic materials which have not been demonstrated to exist. Also, IIRC, the edge of an Alcubierre bubble would create intense enough Hawking radiation to destroy anything inside it.

And that's presuming Alcubierre metric is physically meaningfull and not just an artefact of math.

[eggynack]

If you apply “nothing” to a situation such as “no butter” you are identifying that there is a physical situation, as of air and space substituted for butter. That's where you're getting "nothing" from and now you're trying to use it to attack itself.
I'm absolutely using my limited conscious grasp on reality to construct hypothetical states of being. I can only know, or think I know, being, and continue on from there. But that doesn't make the hypothetical states invalid from a logical perspective.



I don't know what construct you are referring to. I am referring to the fact that a mass illusion is still a real thing, is a real mass illusion, and therefore is not nothing.
And I'm referring to the fact that there may not even be this mass illusion. Maybe there's just nothing. It's a weird and unintuitive jump to make, but it's decidedly non-trivial to prove it an inaccurate claim.



Lacking character is itself a character. Again, you are attempting to extrapolate into the Totality your childhood experiences of finishing your mush and finding nothing left in the bowl.
Lacking character is a character in the exact same sense that nothing can be.



A logical truth remains true regardless of who knows about it. This means that there is a stratum of existence that is aeternal.

This means that A=A as a logical statement remains true regardless of who knows about it, and regardless of whether anything else exists. The fact of its truth exists and therefore partakes of Being. Thus, we have Being and Truth which are necessary existences.
You assume so. Prove it. Your argument is especially problematic because A=A is less a logical claim and more a result of the definition we've chosen to apply to equality. Remove the definition and you lose the facts intrinsic to the definition.



Jump to the end: Being itself is inconceivable in its totality but it is still touchable by human reason. We can conceive that it is.
You assume, again. Prove.

As to logical fancies, well, I hear set theory holds paradoxes like the Barber Paradox.
Yeah, if you design your axioms, definitions, and notation poorly. Incompleteness is an intrinsic quality of first order logic, not the kinda thing that only happens when you try to consider sets containing all sets. This isn't even a paradox. You can't just shrug off incompleteness by saying that other weird things exist.

[Donnadogsoth]

I won't because that's not what I'm here to do. I said it already: everybody else in this thread is willing to accept existence as an axiom, as something so foundational that it needs neither to be proven nor disproven.

I'm here to demonstrate a problem with your logic, specifically your use of English language. Your turtle defense doesn't even begin to address that.

Your fixation on the verb "is" in the sentence "there is nothing" is another nonsense argument from your part. Because the sentence includes negation of that verb. "There is nothing" is synonymous to "there is no thing". You're just compounding "no" and "thing" to linguistically treat them like something and then pretending it is meaningfull when it is not. It's the same thing as when you asked people to "point at nothing".

It is so foundational that no disproof is possible.

"There is no thing" retains "is" which indicates it partakes of Being.

If you want to get around this you will have to come up with an argument that doesn't rely on using "is" whether "is" is implicit ("There nothing") or explicit ("There is nothing").

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Well discounting who the hell cares what a fantasy author has to say on the state of the Universe...
Interesting angle, from some person who must nevertheless think anyone should care about what they have to say about the state of the universe.


I think it's interesting that you're willing to use a term like "Before the Big Bang" but then want to go on with the "no proof" for existence track.
I believe you are either misunderstanding or deliberately ignoring the purpose of my post. I was challenged by danzibr to give a situation in which nothing exists "in our current scenario". The state of the universe when the dimensions had yet to expand matches that definition, according to some theories of the universe (vs e.g. the ones that posit dimensional strings existing backwards in time beyond the Big Bang). Similarly, other theories about the state of the universe after the heat death conclude similar nothingness. Time, for example, only has meaning and can be measured in the presence of changing entropy. At maximum entropy, time cannot be measured. Similarly, the dimensions of space only make sense in a context where reference points can be identified. Both of those will fail to exist after the heat death of the universe. Without dimension and without energy, it is reasonable to describe the universe as "nothing". Whether this will be accurate or not I am not in a position to say, but as I understand it, it is a valid theory.


While I agree there's no defeater for hard solipsism...it's a little absurd to argue the point that whatever you're experience isn't in fact existence. It's the only existence you have. Might as well treat it as such.
Indeed. As I said, existence is axiomatic. I fail to understand why you would think this is not what I am arguing.


I've been, mostly, with Gray Wolf up to this point. Saying "before the Big Bang" isn't something they can prove. There may not have been anything before the Big Bang...since "before" implies time and...there might not have been time before the Big Bang.

Did I use a technically incorrect "before" given that there can be no "before" prior to time? Certainly. But human language fails to be able to accurately describe what we can nevertheless inaccurately describe the state of the universe "pre-"Big Bang. If you don't like "before" then use the word you fell most comfortable with, but I doubt it will be any better than mine.

More importantly, I am not advocating the ability to prove any of this - indeed, my position from the start has been that existence and plenty of other concepts - must be taken as a given, and that no proof can be provided - i.e. they are axioms - I fail to see why Rezade feels he now disagrees with me.

Edit: and because I somehow missed danzibr's actual answer:

And you know for sure you exist. What you are, that's a mystery, but there's something.
No, I do not know "for sure" that I exist, except for definitions of "I" and "exist" so broad as to be meaningless. I could posit scenarios I would not consider to be either for eternity, and you could answer each such scenario by moving the goalposts of "existence " and "me" equally for all eternity. But if you clearly defined either, I could create a scenario that would fit neither. And my ability to prove that "I" "exist" is null. I take it for granted, but I cannot prove it.

Grey Wolf

[Vinyadan]

I can't read half the messages, but it feels like Descartes having a bad trip after lapping LSD from an Anselm of Aosta manuscript.

[Donnadogsoth]

I'm absolutely using my limited conscious grasp on reality to construct hypothetical states of being. I can only know, or think I know, being, and continue on from there. But that doesn't make the hypothetical states invalid from a logical perspective.

You're presuming that logic exists in order to make the case that it doesn't. That contradicts.


And I'm referring to the fact that there may not even be this mass illusion. Maybe there's just nothing. It's a weird and unintuitive jump to make, but it's decidedly non-trivial to prove it an inaccurate claim.

“Maybe there's just nothing” = “Maybe there is just nothing.” Please restate your claim without referring to existence.

Being may be reducible to an amazingly rarefied state, but there is only so far it can be reduced.


Lacking character is a character in the exact same sense that nothing can be.

Again, “can be”. “Be” refers to existence.


You assume so. Prove it. Your argument is especially problematic because A=A is less a logical claim and more a result of the definition we've chosen to apply to equality. Remove the definition and you lose the facts intrinsic to the definition.*

No, you prove that a thing is not itself.

Prove that anything can be real and not partake of Being.

Prove that a logical truth such as plane squares are made up of four equal sides is not a fact that supersedes all temporal change.


You assume, again. Prove.

Being, being logically irreducible, is timeless and participates in all that is, for the fact that “is” and “being” correlate. There is (operative word: “is”) nothing that does not participate in it, as your inability to form a sentence that does not imply an “is” for “nothing” indicates perfectly.

By understanding A=A humans can touch Being without practically being able to grasp it in its entirety. We can grasp that such exists, but, being ourselves temporal, our understanding is limited to the pieces of Truth we can discover; ascent to the highest height, of understanding All, must be reserved for aeternity, for how can the temporal understand the aeternal, rather than just reflections of the aeternal?


Yeah, if you design your axioms, definitions, and notation poorly. Incompleteness is an intrinsic quality of first order logic, not the kinda thing that only happens when you try to consider sets containing all sets. This isn't even a paradox. You can't just shrug off incompleteness by saying that other weird things exist.

Nevertheless, incompleteness exists. Again you're trying to disprove logic with logic, while assuming that Being must be governed by logic and mathematics rather than being the origin of these things.

The paradox inherent in Being, and our immediate inability to resolve these paradoxes, in no way remove Being from Being. That the finite should be unable to comprehend the infinite should come as no surprise.

[Orcus The Vile]

A thread with lots of Donnadogsoth posts? Quickly do a sanity check! >:D

[Fawkes]

I failed my check and consequently do not exist.

[Frozen_Feet]

It is so foundational that no disproof is possible.

Wrong. "No disproof is possible" is not a sign of something being foundational, it is simply a sign that something is unfalsifiable in some system. If this was a scientific discussion, an unfalsifiable argument would be grounds for ignoring you.

Now, there are foundational arguments which can neither be proven nor disproven in the system they're part of. They're called axioms. You might have heard of them. We've been talking of them for quite a while now.

So are you willing to admit "things exist" is your axiom, or do you insist on claiming it is some odd category of things which can be proven but not disproven?


"There is no thing" retains "is" which indicates it partakes of Being.

If you want to get around this you will have to come up with an argument that doesn't rely on using "is" whether "is" is implicit ("There nothing") or explicit ("There is nothing").

This is not how language works. This isn't even semantics, this is plain bad grammar on your part. There is negative in each sentence, targeted at the verb. "Is" =/= "Is not". "Is" specifies existence, "is not" specifies non-existence.

Nothing exists = no thing exists = things are not = things do not partake of Being. Trying to turn that around to claim "a thing partakes in being!" is a gigantic non-sequitur.

[georgie_leech]

Side note, why do we keep using the word "partake?"

[Frozen_Feet]

Because Donna likes the phrase "partaked in Being". No other reason.

[Donnadogsoth]

Wrong. "No disproof is possible" is not a sign of something being foundational, it is simply a sign that something is unfalsifiable in some system. If this was a scientific discussion, an unfalsifiable argument would be grounds for ignoring you.

This is metaphysics, not physics.


Now, there are foundational arguments which can neither be proven nor disproven in the system they're part of. They're called axioms. You might have heard of them. We've been talking of them for quite a while now.

So are you willing to admit "things exist" is your axiom, or do you insist on claiming it is some odd category of things which can be proven but not disproven?

No. You all are participating in a categorical error whereby you are taking examples of the concept of rarefaction, and extracting from it its quantitative aspect. For example, take a tin of sardines. Once the last sardine is eaten, we might say that the tin is empty, and in that sense we would be right. Quantitatively there are no more sardines. But, ontologically what does this mean? It means that the sardines have been replaced by something else. Quantitatively there are zero sardines, but qualitatively there is oil, air, light, etc. left in the open tin.

I think therefore the difference between our opinions is qualitative versus quantitative. You maintain that the quantitative aspect of a thing-- zero worms in the dirt pile, zero trees left in the glade, zero beer in the fridge--counts as a condition that can be extended to everything that exists, including logical truths and Being itself. And superficially we can frame statements like that: zero logical truths, zero Being.

Except this ignores the qualitative aspect of reality, from which we are deriving our notions of "nothing" and "no more" and "zero". And this qualitative aspect, which is Being, will always associate with even the most rarefied of things. Even absolute nothingness has a quality to it, the quality of being absolute nothingness, and that quality debunks the concept. Being will always bob to the surface of the ontology.

[georgie_leech]

Rarefied means for something to be thin or distant, like air at a much lower pressure than sea level, or the near perfect vacuum of space. Rarefied wouldn't actually apply to "nothing."

[danzibr]

Rarefied means for something to be thin or distant, like air at a much lower pressure than sea level, or the near perfect vacuum of space. Rarefied wouldn't actually apply to "nothing."
I thought it was good use of the word. Rarefy -> thin out. Full rarefaction -> complete thinning out -> nothing left over. Heuristically.

But really, this is more nitpicking than addressing the argument.

[Frozen_Feet]

No. You all are participating in a categorical error whereby you are taking examples of the concept of rarefaction, and extracting from it its quantitative aspect. For example, take a tin of sardines. Once the last sardine is eaten, we might say that the tin is empty, and in that sense we would be right. Quantitatively there are no more sardines. But, ontologically what does this mean? It means that the sardines have been replaced by something else. Quantitatively there are zero sardines, but qualitatively there is oil, air, light, etc. left in the open tin.

I think therefore the difference between our opinions is qualitative versus quantitative. You maintain that the quantitative aspect of a thing-- zero worms in the dirt pile, zero trees left in the glade, zero beer in the fridge--counts as a condition that can be extended to everything that exists, including logical truths and Being itself. And superficially we can frame statements like that: zero logical truths, zero Being.

Except this ignores the qualitative aspect of reality, from which we are deriving our notions of "nothing" and "no more" and "zero". And this qualitative aspect, which is Being, will always associate with even the most rarefied of things. Even absolute nothingness has a quality to it, the quality of being absolute nothingness, and that quality debunks the concept. Being will always bob to the surface of the ontology.

1) this argument is not a defense of your abuse of English language.
2) it is a load of crap outside a very specific set of axioms. For example, how did you expect to prove "nothing is replaced by something else", if you are in fact not assuming something already exists?

[Donnadogsoth]

1) this argument is not a defense of your abuse of English language.
2) it is a load of crap outside a very specific set of axioms. For example, how did you expect to prove "nothing is replaced by something else", if you are in fact not assuming something already exists?

You're an empiricist, aren't you? Feel free to experiment. I imagine you'll have a jolly time looking for absolute nothingness.

[Frozen_Feet]

It is an axiom of empiricism that something exists, so of course it is impossible to find "absolute nothingness" from within it.

More limited nothingnesses are trivial, though, such that when English language makes statements like "there are no sardines in the can", it is not making any statement about sardines being replaced by anything, nor do most speakers assume it does. Your entire point is exactly like an insistent child claiming that I must be pointing at something at all times, even if I am pointing at nothing, because my finger still exists and its tip must be oriented in some direction.

[Vinyadan]

The canned sardines
I do not feel any more
Fish oil in the drain

[georgie_leech]

4/10, missing a syllable unless you pronounce it can-NED or something :smalltongue:

[Vinyadan]

Let's go with "the sardines uncanned" :P

[GloatingSwine]

I won't because that's not what I'm here to do. I said it already: everybody else in this thread is willing to accept existence as an axiom, as something so foundational that it needs neither to be proven nor disproven.


Actually, everyone else in the thread is being obtuse.

All attempts to disprove existence immediately fail because existing is a necessary condition for attempting to disprove existence. Existence, therefore, is proven to exist.

Because it is possible to ask the question "does anything exist", something exists.

[Donnadogsoth]

It is an axiom of empiricism that something exists, so of course it is impossible to find "absolute nothingness" from within it.

More limited nothingnesses are trivial, though, such that when English language makes statements like "there are no sardines in the can", it is not making any statement about sardines being replaced by anything, nor do most speakers assume it does. Your entire point is exactly like an insistent child claiming that I must be pointing at something at all times, even if I am pointing at nothing, because my finger still exists and its tip must be oriented in some direction.

Nevertheless, all our experience of nothing comes from such replacements, and we can't point to anything other than mathematical abstractions that constitute anything other than yet another example of X replaced by Y. The sardine tin hasn't collapsed into a ball of metal for lack of space in it, has it? Obviously in the concept "there are no sardines in the tin" we see, in the mind's eye, the normalcy of the situation, of an empty tin sitting there in normal space and time, or whatever other possible situation we might find it.

Of course it's possible to refrain from pointing. Poetically, too, we could say someone was "pointing at nothing", as a dead man pointing, which still retains a kind of concept in the mind or else we wouldn't be able to understand what was being said by the word "nothing"--a poetic nothing is thus a concept derived from physical experience, and so is itself not nothing, but rather something in the mind.

[Fawkes]

All attempts to disprove existence immediately fail because existing is a necessary condition for attempting to disprove existence. Existence, therefore, is proven to exist.

Because it is possible to ask the question "does anything exist", something exists.

Unless it doesn't.

[warty goblin]

It's always a good sign when a thread starts making arguments via poem.


In verse I'll give my two cents
and declare with with no pretense
This thread is mostly nonsense

Is logic contained in the universe?
or to be contrary, quite the converse?
Infinite arguments failing to converge.

Is to be in fact to be?
Or in the end shall we see,
that to be is not to be?

Of course in the end nobody knows
Which just goes to shows
Poetically I'm hitting new lows

And for all our philosophical yammer,
Eventually the thread'll get the banhammer
So out of this I'll now stagger.

[GloatingSwine]

Unless it doesn't.

Then who's doing the asking?


None of you actually have an argument against this, because people have been trying to construct one for four hundred and fifty years and have failed to do so. So all you're doing is thread****ting because Donna posted, which is pretty uncool.

"Cogito ergo sum" is a direct thread from observation to the only supportable conclusion, and necessarily proves existence along the way.

[Vinyadan]

I can't remember how it worked exactly, but, if anyone is interested in a demonstration of the being not being, the sophist Gorgias developed one around 400bC. I think it shows incompatible qualities in being, concluding that its existence is impossible.
It's worth noting that Gorgias was a rhetor, and he liked to prove his skill by saying convincing things that both he and his audience knew were false.

[danzibr]

It's always a good sign when a thread starts making arguments via poem.


In verse I'll give my two cents
and declare with with no pretense
This thread is mostly nonsense

Is logic contained in the universe?
or to be contrary, quite the converse?
Infinite arguments failing to converge.

Is to be in fact to be?
Or in the end shall we see,
that to be is not to be?

Of course in the end nobody knows
Which just goes to shows
Poetically I'm hitting new lows

And for all our philosophical yammer,
Eventually the thread'll get the banhammer
So out of this I'll now stagger.

Nice ;)

I rather hope this thread doesn't get the banhammer.

Then who's doing the asking?


None of you actually have an argument against this, because people have been trying to construct one for four hundred and fifty years and have failed to do so. So all you're doing is thread****ting because Donna posted, which is pretty uncool.

"Cogito ergo sum" is a direct thread from observation to the only supportable conclusion, and necessarily proves existence along the way.
Threadwhatting?

Oh man, is this a common occurrence here? That's rather a pity.

I can't remember how it worked exactly, but, if anyone is interested in a demonstration of the being not being, the sophist Gorgias developed one around 400bC. I think it shows incompatible qualities in being, concluding that its existence is impossible.
It's worth noting that Gorgias was a rhetor, and he liked to prove his skill by saying convincing things that both he and his audience knew were false.
Interesting. I'll be doing some googling.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

None of you actually have an argument against this

Then by all means, define my existence, and then prove that no other alternative is possible.

Because, you see, I do assume that I am NOT a brain in a jar, and I would not say that "I" "exist" if I where, because I am more than my brain - I am my past decisions, and my plans for the future, and all the people that I care about. That is my existence.

Except it is trivial to construct a scenario where all those things are effectively negated, removing my existence. Last Thursdaism, for example.

"Who is doing the asking?". I assume it is me. But I cannot prove that I, as I understand myself to be, exist.

So what you are left with is a ridiculous argument which if this was a math question of "what is 2+2?" you'd answer "A number in the complex plane" and somehow deluded yourself into thinking you have answered the question because you are "technically" correct, since the solution is going to be there somewhere. As I have said several times, I reject such an answer as way, way, way too vague.

Also, given that your entire contribution to this thread (other than the aforementioned "2+2 has an answer") has been to engage in personal attacks, who exactly is threadcrapping around here?

Grey Wolf

[GloatingSwine]

Then by all means, define my existence, and then prove that no other alternative is possible.


I don't need to define your existence or ascribe any particular properties to it, I only need to demonstrate mine in order to prove the point that something exists, which I can do by asking the question "do I exist?".

On obeserving the question being asked, I logically conclude than an "I" exists to ask it otherwise it could not have been asked. Because I can ask the question, I exist. Cogito ergo sum.

This remains true no matter what sense data is available, no matter the state of absolutely anything else, I can demonstrate the existence of something which describes itself as "me".

That means that the set of "things which exist" has at least one member, me.

Existence is.


Everything else, all the waffle about whether or not you're a brain in a jar or you can prove a version of yourself with a specific set of properties is irrelevant to the argument "is Existence?"

[Fawkes]

So all you're doing is thread****ting because Donna posted, which is pretty uncool.

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/RemarkableTediousDwarfmongoose-small.gif

If you want me to put my serious hat on, I think this entire thread is nonsense. It's a bunch of people with different understandings of different philosophies talking past each other. Donnadogsoth is not the only offender in that regard, although he does have a habit of turning threads into that same type of pointless discussion. I suppose we should be thankful that this one at least has been without hate speech

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Everything else, all the waffle about whether or not you're a brain in a jar or you can prove a version of yourself with a specific set of properties is irrelevant to the argument "is Existence?"

So, in short, you are indeed using the semantics argument where you define existence so broadly as to become meaningless. "Existence", for the purposes of your "proof" is an unfalsifiable, nebulous concept that matches anything and everything, regardless. As I said, "Prove that 2+2 = 4" is not proven by "2+2 has an answer somewhere in the whole realm of mathematics". By reducing "existence" to such a overbroad concept, it ceases to have a meaning.

I am also deeply distrustful of any argument that can only proven to the individual making the argument. Unless you can prove your existence to others, your proof is not valid.

Grey Wolf

[Vinyadan]

Ontology isn't
Always interesting for
Existentialists

[Fawkes]

There once was a white male supremacist
Who fancied himself metaphysicist
He argued of Being
Without ever seeing
That nothing he knows ever does exist

[Orcus The Vile]

There once was a white male supremacist
Who fancied himself metaphysicist
He argued of Being
Without ever seeing
That nothing he knows ever does exist

*clap clap clap clap*

I think we can conclude that if it can't be "sensed" of "detected", it's existence or lack of it is therefore irrelevant.

[Fawkes]

I think we can conclude that if it can't be "sensed" of "detected", it's existence or lack of it is therefore irrelevant.

If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, will nerds argue about it on the internet for days without accomplishing anything?

[Vinyadan]

A point is being missed
Being doesn't mean existence
In philosophy

In theory, you can use them interchangeably, but it leads you to confusion.
"Being" in philosophy is the translation of Greek "on", present participle of eimi "I am". Unlike English, Greek didn't mix up verbal adjective (that which is) and action name (the act of being), and only meant the former: that which is.

The act of being - which can also be understood as the quality of being - was called ousia. Without ousia, you are not.

However, while you can call ousia "existence", it leads you to a new confusion. Existence can be used as translation of German Dasein, which means "being there". That's the personal existence, which gives for assumed that something is, and determines personal identity through relationship to the surrounding world. Which, as I understand it, was the point being discussed with the brain in jar example.

Also, the knowledge and communicability problem is part of Gorgias' demonstration.

[Orcus The Vile]

If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, will nerds argue about it on the internet for days without accomplishing anything?

The ponit is that it doesn't metter :D

But the internet will find a way to make it seem relevant. -_-

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/wlRb_k2DQk0/hqdefault.jpg

[Tvtyrant]

If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, will nerds argue about it on the internet for days without accomplishing anything?

How many nerds can dance on the head of a pinball machine?

[Donnadogsoth]

So, in short, you are indeed using the semantics argument where you define existence so broadly as to become meaningless. "Existence", for the purposes of your "proof" is an unfalsifiable, nebulous concept that matches anything and everything, regardless. As I said, "Prove that 2+2 = 4" is not proven by "2+2 has an answer somewhere in the whole realm of mathematics". By reducing "existence" to such a overbroad concept, it ceases to have a meaning.

I am also deeply distrustful of any argument that can only proven to the individual making the argument. Unless you can prove your existence to others, your proof is not valid.

Grey Wolf

That's not very scientific, Grey Wolf. A scientist doesn't have to prove he exists to you for you to consider the proof he has given, does he? All that matters is the proof. So, run the experiment yourself.

[Fawkes]

That's not very scientific, Grey Wolf. A scientist doesn't have to prove he exists to you for you to consider the proof he has given, does he? All that matters is the proof. So, run the experiment yourself.

In which the Scientific Method is creatively interpreted as blind acceptance of assertions from people who may or may not exist.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

That's not very scientific, Grey Wolf. A scientist doesn't have to prove he exists to you for you to consider the proof he has given, does he? All that matters is the proof. So, run the experiment yourself.

Sure, I just did. I was not able to verify the existence of GloatingSwine. His proof of existence is therefore rejected.

Or possibly you mean I should determine my own existence? I have already established I am unable to do so to my satisfaction by any method known to me. So I still conclude that existence cannot be proved, and instead I take it as an axiom.

GW

[Donnadogsoth]

Sure, I just did. I was not able to verify the existence of GloatingSwine. His proof of existence is therefore rejected.

Or possibly you mean I should determine my own existence? I have already established I am unable to do so to my satisfaction by any method known to me. So I still conclude that existence cannot be proved, and instead I take it as an axiom.

GW

Nevertheless "something" happened when you attempted it, and that "something" that keeps on keeping on, words on your screen right now, is all that is needed to maintain that existence exists, anytime one cares to look. The existence of "you" doesn't matter. And debunking the existence of absolute nothingness is all that is needed to show existence necessarily exists.

Why are people so fond of nothing that they will defend its existence down to the last ad hominem?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Nevertheless "something" happened when you attempted it, and that "something" that keeps on keeping on, words on your screen right now, is all that is needed to maintain that existence exists, anytime one cares to look. The existence of "you" doesn't matter. And debunking the existence of absolute nothingness is all that is needed to show existence necessarily exists.

No. That is only true by the useless definition of "existence" that I rebutted above, a definition that, in fact, renders the concept of "true" equally useless, rendering the whole approach barren.

You may be content of defining existence as "reality OR a computer simulation OR a fevered dream OR Last Thursdaism OR ..." but I am not. Either prove which of those is actually the existence you are talking about, or accept that defining "existence" as "anything goes" renders the concept and definition of existence meaningless (or, of course, accept you can't do either, and therefore you are assuming that existence is equivalent to what we call reality, and that such assumption is an axiom).

GW

[Fawkes]

Why are people so fond of nothing that they will defend its existence down to the last ad hominem?

I dare say I am fond of nothing more than existence.

[Donnadogsoth]

No. That is only true by the useless definition of "existence" that I rebutted above, a definition that, in fact, renders the concept of "true" equally useless, rendering the whole approach barren.

You may be content of defining existence as "reality OR a computer simulation OR a fevered dream OR Last Thursdaism OR ..." but I am not. Either prove which of those is actually the existence you are talking about, or accept that defining "existence" as "anything goes" renders the concept and definition of existence meaningless (or, of course, accept you can't do either, and therefore you are assuming that existence is equivalent to what we call reality, and that such assumption is an axiom).

GW

Lost you at the bolded text. In what way is existence different from reality?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Lost you at the bolded text. In what way is existence different from reality?

If, for example, I am not posting this to a computer, and instead I am in a mental hospital talking to a padded wall, then reality and existence are not interchangeable.

I call everything I perceive around me "my existence". Whether that matches reality or not, I cannot tell. In fact, I cannot be sure anything exists at all. I only assume it does.

Now, I have answered your question. Are you going to answer mine?

GW

[golentan]

Now, I have answered your question. Are you going to answer mine?

GW

Probably not. His whole modus operandi is dependent on strategic vagueness. He didn't give me a definition when I asked for one either, and he seems reluctant to break his world view into component axioms and deductions for analysis.

As long as we're playing semantic games with definitions... Analysis. Ana (throughout) Lysis (breakdown). Study through reduction into component parts.

[Donnadogsoth]

If, for example, I am not posting this to a computer, and instead I am in a mental hospital talking to a padded wall, then reality and existence are not interchangeable.

I call everything I perceive around me "my existence". Whether that matches reality or not, I cannot tell. In fact, I cannot be sure anything exists at all. I only assume it does.

Now, I have answered your question. Are you going to answer mine?

GW

Oh, I think we're at crossed lines here. Do I use language differently than other people? It should be have been obvious that when I use “Being” or “existence” I am referring to what you call “reality” not what you call “existence”. Any specific instance or perspective on that “reality” is really immaterial, the whole point here is merely to indicate the ineradicability of reality. Reality is anything other than absolute nothingness. And, I'm content defining reality as such. This is not meaningless, it supplies us with the principle of identity (A=A).

I rather wish others would get up to speed on the existence of existence and the reality of reality so that the philosophising can proceed to a more interesting question, viz., why is everything the way it is and not another way?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Oh, I think we're at crossed lines here. Do I use language differently than other people? It should be have been obvious that when I use “Being” or “existence” I am referring to what you call “reality” not what you call “existence”. Any specific instance or perspective on that “reality” is really immaterial, the whole point here is merely to indicate the ineradicability of reality. Reality is anything other than absolute nothingness. And, I'm content defining reality as such. This is not meaningless, it supplies us with the principle of identity (A=A).

I rather wish others would get up to speed on the existence of existence and the reality of reality so that the philosophising can proceed to a more interesting question, viz., why is everything the way it is and not another way?

So not going to answer my question, then?

GW

[2D8HP]

I Do you think there's anything in existence which cannot be "sensed"?


Maybe. In the past humanity has made instruments that have measured previously unknown "stuff" (radio waves and the like), so maybe there's more "stuff".


Oh, I think we're at crossed lines here. Do I use language differently than other people?....


Judging by the rest of your post yes.
I recognize the individual words, but the full sentences? Not so much. עס ס אַלע גריכיש צו מיר

[Donnadogsoth]

So not going to answer my question, then?

GW

I thought I just did. I scoured your recent posts for question marks and came up empty. Care to rephrase?

[Donnadogsoth]

Judging by the rest of your post yes.
I recognize the individual words, but the full sentences? Not so much. עס ס אַלע גריכיש צו מיר

Here's the Coles Notes: Reality necessarily exists because absolute nonexistence is an incoherent concept, the same as a married bachelor or a circular triangle.

[georgie_leech]

I thought I just did. I scoured your recent posts for question marks and came up empty. Care to rephrase?

Try hitting Ctrl+F "?" and look for his posts. Might help you in your "scouring."

[Donnadogsoth]

Try hitting Ctrl+F "?" and look for his posts. Might help you in your "scouring."

Does he mean this?

"Or possibly you mean I should determine my own existence? I have already established I am unable to do so to my satisfaction by any method known to me. So I still conclude that existence cannot be proved, and instead I take it as an axiom."

I don't care what the answer to that question is. Thought my reply made that clear. Does that answer it? Or is there another question?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I thought I just did. I scoured your recent posts for question marks and came up empty. Care to rephrase?

Since page 3 I have been asking you to prove if existence is reality, or a hallucination, or a computer simulation or a fevered dream or Last Thursdaism or any other of the infinite possibilities (which, btw, includes "nothing").

Given that reality ≠ a hallucination ≠ computer simulation ≠ fevered dream , existence must be only one of those. So which one is it? And what is your proof of your selection?

Because saying "I don't care what existence actually is" is not an answer. It is avoiding the answer.

Grey Wolf

[Donnadogsoth]

Since page 3 I have been asking you to prove if existence is reality, or a hallucination, or a computer simulation or a fevered dream or Last Thursdaism or any other of the infinite possibilities (which, btw, includes "nothing").

Given that reality ≠ a hallucination ≠ computer simulation ≠ fevered dream , existence must be only one of those. So which one is it? And what is your proof of your selection?

Because saying "I don't care what existence actually is" is not an answer. It is avoiding the answer.

Grey Wolf

As I have said, or at least very strongly implied, the answer to your question is irrelevant to the question of whether "reality" (in your terms) necessarily exists, which is what concerns me here, and I'm not sure why you raise it. Why do you raise it?--and since page 3, no less! But, let me indulge you.

We don't know what hallucinations, computer simulations, and fevered dreams are, at this level of scepsis, or if they differ from any other interpretation of the nature of reality. My interpretation of the nature of reality, for which interpretation I do not have a name, is below.

As you will no doubt deny (and let this indication preface each ensuing sentence in this paragraph), our existence is temporal. Time is a measure of change, which makes our existence one of unending change. Since nothing which changes can be timeless, we find that our origin must be outside of ourselves. This aeternal Origin being the source of all that is, lives, and thinks, must embody the essences of all three and therefore must be possessed of existence, action, and intelligence. It is the last which concern us here, in that the Origin created us in terms of the principle of sufficient reason (introduced here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22457914&postcount=9)), and so there is sufficient reason to believe that this creation was not in vain but purposeful. Thus, the nature of the existence you or I lead is that it (a) exists, (b) changes, and, (c) is purposeful. This implies a gravity to existence that is at least partially incompatible with a fevered dream or other presumption of wasted time. Wasting time is possible, but that cannot be the essence of existence, and even if we find ourselves crossing the boundary between dream and reality we cannot, so long as we grasp the argument just stated, believe that the situation is a true waste of time.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

As I have said, or at least very strongly implied, the answer to your question is irrelevant to the question of whether "reality" (in your terms) necessarily exists

And there we have it, Donna admitting that reality and existence may not exist.

I'm done with this discussion.

GW

[Donnadogsoth]

And there we have it, Donna admitting that reality and existence may not exist.

I'm done with this discussion.

GW

Not sure where that level of bad faith and willful ignorance comes from, but there you go.

[Fawkes]

I'm not sure what (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22047214&postcount=153) would cause anyone would have bad faith (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22050593&postcount=219) in a discussion (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?525188-Hoaxing-the-gender-studies-prof/page8&p=22050593#post22050593) with you.

[Donnadogsoth]

I'm not sure what (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22047214&postcount=153) would cause anyone would have bad faith (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22050593&postcount=219) in a discussion (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?525188-Hoaxing-the-gender-studies-prof/page8&p=22050593#post22050593) with you.

Let's only have good faith towards those who agree with us!

[Fawkes]

How very southpaw-ish of you!

I'm actually right-handed.


*clap clap clap clap*

If you liked that first limerick, I came up with another one.

There once was a man who spewed bile,
Homophobic and sexist and vile,
Though I'm sure he'll protest
Truly I think it's best
That we all just ignore him, and smile :smallsmile:

[Donnadogsoth]

There once were some bad faith materialists,
Cousins to southpaw imperialists,
I dared to correct
Lest their daggers connect
With those true hearts preferring their libel list!

[Fawkes]

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/tumblr_lo9et1q9711qzbyhpo1_500.gif

[golentan]

I'm not acting in bad faith. I genuinely believe your professed insight exceeds your possessed insight, and your inability to articulate concepts or engage with material more complicated than what I'd expect from a first year philosophy student who only got in as a Legacy indicates a lot.

The mind is a big place, and worth fighting for. But before you start digging trenches, maybe you should fill it with something useful.

[Donnadogsoth]

I'm not acting in bad faith. I genuinely believe your professed insight exceeds your possessed insight, and your inability to articulate concepts or engage with material more complicated than what I'd expect from a first year philosophy student who only got in as a Legacy indicates a lot.

The mind is a big place, and worth fighting for. But before you start digging trenches, maybe you should fill it with something useful.

Why is the mind worth fighting for?

[Mystic Muse]

Why is the mind worth fighting for?

Why don't you answer that question since you're the one proclaiming it in their signature?

[Razade]

Why don't you answer that question since you're the one proclaiming it in their signature?

Donna's not in the business of answering questions, just in the business of vacuous sophistry.

[golentan]

Why is the mind worth fighting for?

It's where I keep all my stuff.

[Donnadogsoth]

Why don't you answer that question since you're the one proclaiming it in their signature?

I can say it no better than Friedrich Schiller:

"A soul, says one wise man of this century, enlightened to the degree, that it has the plan of divine providence as a whole before its eyes, is the happiest of souls. An eternal, grand, and beautiful law has bound perfection to delight, discontent to imperfection. That which brings a person closer to that atonement, be it directly or indirectly, will delight him. That which brings him away from it, will grieve him, and what grieves him, he will avoid, but what delights him, for that he will strive. He will seek perfection, because imperfection causes him pain; he will seek it because it delights him himself.... Thus it is as much whether I say: the person exists to be happy; or he exists to be perfect. He is only then perfect, when he is happy. He is only then happy, when he is perfect."

and,

"Yet another law, one beautiful and wise, a branch of the first, bound the perfection of the whole with the happiness of the individual human being with human being, yea, human being with animal, by the bond of universal love. Love, therefore, the most beautiful and most noble force in the human soul, the great chain of sentient nature, is nothing but the exchange of myself with the being of a fellow human being....

"And why universal love: why all the delights of universal love? — Alone out of this latter fundamental intent, to promote the perfection of one's fellow man. And this perfection, comprehension, research, admiration of the great plan of nature. Yea, ultimately all the delights of the senses, of which one ought to speak in its place, incline themselves, through many bends and apparent contradictions, finally back to the same point. Immutably, the truth remains ever identical to itself: the human being is destined to comprehend, to research, to admire the great plan of nature."

[LughSpear]

What if nature doesn't have a great plan for us? :smallconfused:

[Grey_Wolf_c]

What if nature doesn't have a great plan for us? :smallconfused:

“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.”


― Douglas Adams, The Salmon of Doubt

[Donnadogsoth]

What if nature doesn't have a great plan for us? :smallconfused:

No, LughSpear, nature does not have a plan for us, we create a plan for mastering it. The great plan of nature is its extremely structured nature, its process of ever-increasing complexity, as though flying from chaos into the arms of order. We are part of that increasing complexity, being capable of discovering principle and thus improving our workmanship, our power to survive, our opportunity for perfection and happiness as a species. Let that optimistic stone of truth drop in our pessimistic "puddle" of understanding.

[LughSpear]

No, LughSpear, nature does not have a plan for us, we create a plan for mastering it. The great plan of nature is its extremely structured nature, its process of ever-increasing complexity, as though flying from chaos into the arms of order. We are part of that increasing complexity, being capable of discovering principle and thus improving our workmanship, our power to survive, our opportunity for perfection and happiness as a species. Let that optimistic stone of truth drop in our pessimistic "puddle" of understanding.

Oh, yeah I'm sure we "mastering" nature alright. :smallannoyed:

http://www.indiacelebrating.com/wp-content/uploads/Water-Pollution.jpg

[Fawkes]

Can we do the bit about destroying the Rockies to flood Nevada again? I liked that one.

[warty goblin]

No, LughSpear, nature does not have a plan for us, we create a plan for mastering it. The great plan of nature is its extremely structured nature, its process of ever-increasing complexity, as though flying from chaos into the arms of order. We are part of that increasing complexity, being capable of discovering principle and thus improving our workmanship, our power to survive, our opportunity for perfection and happiness as a species. Let that optimistic stone of truth drop in our pessimistic "puddle" of understanding.


Thermodynamics want a word,
This thesis is patently absurd.

Here's the deal, the real McCoy,
Entropy's always taking, a greedy boy

All the energy's gonna get used
Universal power out, no more juice

Yep you're totally screwed
And ain't no way to elude

Inevitable heat Death
So cold I can see my breath

Anything else's a lie,
No matter how hard you cry

"This ain't my philosophy"
Ain't no truth in your theory

Load of feel good special pleeding
Won't stop the order from the universe bleeding

Giant cold empty bloodstain
That'll be the eternal refrain

No more stars, all the hydrogen's fused
Like dogs of war, mere entropy's losed

Many folks might find it sad
But truth ain't a stranger from the bad

Accept it or not, it don't much matter
Universal'll run out of useful matter

Ooh that was fun,
Some wordplay, a pun!

Yep we're on a sinking ship
A little bright and warm blip

Then it'll be cold and dark,
Nothing left, not even snark

So let's all laugh as she goes down
Make a smile, upside down with your frown!

Yes, let's have a really jolly good time,
And about our inevitable demise rhyme!

[lunaticfringe]

Can we do the bit about destroying the Rockies to flood Nevada again? I liked that one.

Eh I think China did it better, maybe we should outsource.

[Donnadogsoth]

Oh, yeah I'm sure we "mastering" nature alright. :smallannoyed:

http://www.indiacelebrating.com/wp-content/uploads/Water-Pollution.jpg

You're alive, aren't you? You only exist because your ancestors mastered Nature sufficiently to increase the carrying capacity of the land.

You post pictures of waste production? So what? Does your body produce waste? Why don't you post pictures of that to show how disgusting and unable to solve their problems humans are?

Why are you annoyed? Because not everyone is as cynical and misanthropic as you?

[LughSpear]

You're alive, aren't you? You only exist because your ancestors mastered Nature sufficiently to increase the carrying capacity of the land.

You post pictures of waste production? So what? Does your body produce waste? Why don't you post pictures of that to show how disgusting and unable to solve their problems humans are?

Why are you annoyed? Because not everyone is as cynical and misanthropic as you?

Who said I'm cynical and misanthropic? :smallconfused: You are the one who seems to be naive.:smallannoyed:

[danzibr]

Who said I'm cynical and misanthropic? :smallconfused: You are the one who seems to be naive.:smallannoyed:
I'd say there's quite a difference between positivity and naivete.

Perhaps I'm naive.