[1.] An entity can exist in the understanding but not in reality
[2.] Existence in reality is greater than existence in the understanding alone
[3.] It is possible for an entity with all maximally great properties to exist in reality
[4.] From [3.] an entity with all maximally great properties plus existence in reality can exist in the understanding alone
[5.] The entity is greater than itself, according to [1.] and [2.]
[6.] [5.] is a contradiction
[7.] Therefore an entity with all maximally great properties actually exists in reality
Ontological Thought Experiment
-
Trevor Salyzyn
- Posts: 2420
- Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
- Location: Canada
Re: Ontological Thought Experiment
Heh. With things like this, it's simply a matter of figuring out where the person made his first mistake. Of course, you made it right off the bat. :)
Quote:Quote:<hr>[1.] An entity can exist in the understanding but not in reality <hr>
The understanding is part of reality. If something exists in the understanding then it also exists, necessarily, in reality as well.
And to really rub it it in:
Quote:Quote:<hr>[2.] Existence in reality is greater than existence in the understanding alone <hr>
You misunderstand the word 'greater'. Existence in the understanding is existence in reality. Existence in reality is not necessarily existence in the understanding. Simply put: all A's are B's, but not all B's are A's. Therefore B is greater than A. What you are trying to say is that C (B's that are not also A's) is greater than A. This is a poor use of logic.
Quote:Quote:<hr>[1.] An entity can exist in the understanding but not in reality <hr>
The understanding is part of reality. If something exists in the understanding then it also exists, necessarily, in reality as well.
And to really rub it it in:
Quote:Quote:<hr>[2.] Existence in reality is greater than existence in the understanding alone <hr>
You misunderstand the word 'greater'. Existence in the understanding is existence in reality. Existence in reality is not necessarily existence in the understanding. Simply put: all A's are B's, but not all B's are A's. Therefore B is greater than A. What you are trying to say is that C (B's that are not also A's) is greater than A. This is a poor use of logic.
-
Trevor Salyzyn
- Posts: 2420
- Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
- Location: Canada
Re: Ontological Thought Experiment
Here's my own thought experiment:
[1] God, by definition, exists.
[2] The definition is really explicit, right at the start of the Bible, written so simplistically that even a child could understand it. (He in whose own image man is formed. He even gets His own pronoun.)
[3] from [1] we can infer that anyone who tries to prove the existence of God didn't understand the definition.
[4] from [1] we can also infer that anyone who doesn't believe in the existence of God didn't understand the definition.
[5] the vast majority of people are described by [3] and [4].
[6] from [1] and [3]-[5], we can conclude either that (a) God has a tricky definition, or that (b) the vast majority of people are lazy idiots.
[7] from [6a], we could conclude that the definition needs to be more explicit.
[8] from [6b], we could conclude that the vast majority of people are lazy idiots who show that they don't understand the definition of God by [3] trying to prove the existence of God, or who [4] otherwise simply don't believe in the existence of God. To be fair, these people have no good reason to ever use the word God for anything, and succeed only in spreading their misunderstanding to other lazy idiots.
[9] [2] and [7] form a contradiction, therefore [8]
[edit: I believe that the chain of reasoning required to prove, logically and without error, the existence of God would need to be infinitely long (more than likely, taking this form: B is contained within A, but A is not contained within B. C is contained within A, but A is not contained within C... ad infinitum... asking what happens at the end of the series, or whether or not A is contained within A, is as academic and meaningless as asking what the last digit of pi is.) It's laziness (the good kind of laziness) which gives Him a word -- therefore, the same laziness should make His definition and proof as short as possible. In this case, the shortest definition is indeed the best one, and any proof with attributes is going to be wrong.]
[edit2: on second thought, David can establish the existence of God much quicker than that with his "Reality [God] is not nothing whatsoever." And: as soon as I finished typing mine, I realized it was Kant's proof. Whoops.] Edited by: mookestink at: 6/16/05 2:53
[1] God, by definition, exists.
[2] The definition is really explicit, right at the start of the Bible, written so simplistically that even a child could understand it. (He in whose own image man is formed. He even gets His own pronoun.)
[3] from [1] we can infer that anyone who tries to prove the existence of God didn't understand the definition.
[4] from [1] we can also infer that anyone who doesn't believe in the existence of God didn't understand the definition.
[5] the vast majority of people are described by [3] and [4].
[6] from [1] and [3]-[5], we can conclude either that (a) God has a tricky definition, or that (b) the vast majority of people are lazy idiots.
[7] from [6a], we could conclude that the definition needs to be more explicit.
[8] from [6b], we could conclude that the vast majority of people are lazy idiots who show that they don't understand the definition of God by [3] trying to prove the existence of God, or who [4] otherwise simply don't believe in the existence of God. To be fair, these people have no good reason to ever use the word God for anything, and succeed only in spreading their misunderstanding to other lazy idiots.
[9] [2] and [7] form a contradiction, therefore [8]
[edit: I believe that the chain of reasoning required to prove, logically and without error, the existence of God would need to be infinitely long (more than likely, taking this form: B is contained within A, but A is not contained within B. C is contained within A, but A is not contained within C... ad infinitum... asking what happens at the end of the series, or whether or not A is contained within A, is as academic and meaningless as asking what the last digit of pi is.) It's laziness (the good kind of laziness) which gives Him a word -- therefore, the same laziness should make His definition and proof as short as possible. In this case, the shortest definition is indeed the best one, and any proof with attributes is going to be wrong.]
[edit2: on second thought, David can establish the existence of God much quicker than that with his "Reality [God] is not nothing whatsoever." And: as soon as I finished typing mine, I realized it was Kant's proof. Whoops.] Edited by: mookestink at: 6/16/05 2:53
-
Trevor Salyzyn
- Posts: 2420
- Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
- Location: Canada
Re: Ontological Thought Experiment
Oooh oooh, let's see what else I can prove! Piggyback this upon my last argument.
[1] The vast majority of people are lazy idiots.
[2] A lazy idiot is not an intelligent person.
[3] An unintelligent person cannot understand explicit definitions.
[4] The definition of God is explicit.
[5] From 1,2,3,4: The vast majority of people cannot understand the definition of God.
[6] Someone who cannot understand the definition of a word cannot use it correctly.
[7] An intelligent person will avoid using words that he cannot use correctly.
[8] An atheist avoids using the word 'God'.
[9] A Christian does not avoid using the word 'God'.
[10 ] Assumption: The 'vast majority of people' includes atheists.
[11] Assumption: The 'vast majority of people' includes Christians.
[12] From 5,6,7: An intelligent person will avoid using the word 'God'.
[13] From 8,12: An atheist is an intelligent person.
[14] From 1,2,10: An atheist is not an intelligent person.
[15] 13 and 14 form a contradiction, therefore assumption 9 is incorrect, and 'the vast majority of people' does not include atheists.
[16] From 9,12: A Christian is not an intelligent person.
[17] From 1,2,11: A Christian is not an intelligent person.
[18] 16 and 17 form a tautology, therefore assumption 11 is correct.
[19] From 10,15,11,18: The vast majority of people includes Christians, but not atheists.
Now go back to my last argument, and enjoy the irony. 8) Edited by: mookestink at: 6/16/05 2:47
[1] The vast majority of people are lazy idiots.
[2] A lazy idiot is not an intelligent person.
[3] An unintelligent person cannot understand explicit definitions.
[4] The definition of God is explicit.
[5] From 1,2,3,4: The vast majority of people cannot understand the definition of God.
[6] Someone who cannot understand the definition of a word cannot use it correctly.
[7] An intelligent person will avoid using words that he cannot use correctly.
[8] An atheist avoids using the word 'God'.
[9] A Christian does not avoid using the word 'God'.
[10 ] Assumption: The 'vast majority of people' includes atheists.
[11] Assumption: The 'vast majority of people' includes Christians.
[12] From 5,6,7: An intelligent person will avoid using the word 'God'.
[13] From 8,12: An atheist is an intelligent person.
[14] From 1,2,10: An atheist is not an intelligent person.
[15] 13 and 14 form a contradiction, therefore assumption 9 is incorrect, and 'the vast majority of people' does not include atheists.
[16] From 9,12: A Christian is not an intelligent person.
[17] From 1,2,11: A Christian is not an intelligent person.
[18] 16 and 17 form a tautology, therefore assumption 11 is correct.
[19] From 10,15,11,18: The vast majority of people includes Christians, but not atheists.
Now go back to my last argument, and enjoy the irony. 8) Edited by: mookestink at: 6/16/05 2:47
Re: Ontological Thought Experiment
Quote:Quote:<hr>The understanding is part of reality. If something exists in the understanding then it also exists, necessarily, in reality as well.<hr>
I can imagine many things but "many of the many" don't actually exist. Therefore [1.] is valid.
I can imagine many things but "many of the many" don't actually exist. Therefore [1.] is valid.
-
Trevor Salyzyn
- Posts: 2420
- Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
- Location: Canada
Re: Ontological Thought Experiment
Quote:Quote:<hr>I can imagine many things but "many of the many" don't actually exist. Therefore [1.] is valid.<hr>
Wrong. It exists in your imagination, which is part of reality. Stop trying to separate thoughts from reality. Thoughts REALLY exist.
Wrong. It exists in your imagination, which is part of reality. Stop trying to separate thoughts from reality. Thoughts REALLY exist.
Re: Ontological Thought Experiment
Yo Mookie, what are you, in Logic 101?
Anyway, I disagree with your premises:
Quote:Quote:<hr>[1] God, by definition, exists.
[2] The definition is really explicit, right at the start of the Bible, written so simplistically that even a child could understand it. (He in whose own image man is formed. He even gets His own pronoun.)
[4] The definition of God is explicit.<hr>
The Bible starts out like this:
Quote:Quote:<hr>1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.<hr>
The Biblical God is a given. He is not defined. It's just assumed that you know what they mean. (This is, in fact, crucial to Christianity, as Jehovah has contradictory properties. It's not even clear that Jehovah is a single entity. <a href="http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/gods.html" target="top">In many verses, he appears to be a committee.</a>)
From Genesis 1, you could just as easily 'define' God as the creator of the earth, or the creator of light, etc. Your definition is an arbitrary selection from the Bible.
Secondly, the term "God" is used in many ways, not all of them referring to Jehovah. The Bible is not a definitive source for what the term means.
Now this one:
Quote:Quote:<hr>[1] God, by definition, exists.<hr>
That just makes my head go ba-doing, ba-doing. You can't just define something into existence.... can you? If you mean the concept of God exists... I'm not sure I'd even grant you that, since the concept seems to be self-contradictory. And the definition you gave - he in who's image man was formed - does not not in itself demand that it points to something that actually exists. It already begs the question, assuming there was something there doing the forming and the modelling.
Jehovah exists in the same sense that invisible pink unicorns can be said to exist.
Anyway, I disagree with your premises:
Quote:Quote:<hr>[1] God, by definition, exists.
[2] The definition is really explicit, right at the start of the Bible, written so simplistically that even a child could understand it. (He in whose own image man is formed. He even gets His own pronoun.)
[4] The definition of God is explicit.<hr>
The Bible starts out like this:
Quote:Quote:<hr>1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.<hr>
The Biblical God is a given. He is not defined. It's just assumed that you know what they mean. (This is, in fact, crucial to Christianity, as Jehovah has contradictory properties. It's not even clear that Jehovah is a single entity. <a href="http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/gods.html" target="top">In many verses, he appears to be a committee.</a>)
From Genesis 1, you could just as easily 'define' God as the creator of the earth, or the creator of light, etc. Your definition is an arbitrary selection from the Bible.
Secondly, the term "God" is used in many ways, not all of them referring to Jehovah. The Bible is not a definitive source for what the term means.
Now this one:
Quote:Quote:<hr>[1] God, by definition, exists.<hr>
That just makes my head go ba-doing, ba-doing. You can't just define something into existence.... can you? If you mean the concept of God exists... I'm not sure I'd even grant you that, since the concept seems to be self-contradictory. And the definition you gave - he in who's image man was formed - does not not in itself demand that it points to something that actually exists. It already begs the question, assuming there was something there doing the forming and the modelling.
Jehovah exists in the same sense that invisible pink unicorns can be said to exist.
-
Trevor Salyzyn
- Posts: 2420
- Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
- Location: Canada
Re: Ontological Thought Experiment
Hahaha, you're partially right, DHodges. There is something really fishy with my premises. You can indeed define something 'into existence' if you define it properly, and few Christians would argue that my argument is invalid. In fact, God is one of those rare concepts that you can do it with, given a proper understanding of the word.
The problem is not there, but with my second point: where I said that the definition of God is explicit. God is not explicitly defined within the Bible, so you can really play a number on anyone who doesn't realize this fact.
Basically, you can define God into existence under one and only one condition, and that is if you were to use David Quinn's definition.
"Reality is not nothing whatsoever."
Substitute the word Reality for God, and you have a definition of God that can be used as a premiss in an argument. In that logical form, it is an undeniable fact. God, the Totality, Reality, or whatever you want to call it... is not nothing whatsoever.
I know the argument is flawed, but that's what makes me like it. If a Christian were to read it, and come to the final conclusion at the end of the second post, I believe that the premiss that they would be forced to discard would be that God has an explicit definition. Once you take that one out, the whole house falls down.
I may have only taken a few logic courses, but I'm also shrewd enough to know where my logic fails. Argue to have your arguments defeated in specific ways, and your opponents will learn something. Edited by: mookestink at: 6/16/05 5:01
The problem is not there, but with my second point: where I said that the definition of God is explicit. God is not explicitly defined within the Bible, so you can really play a number on anyone who doesn't realize this fact.
Basically, you can define God into existence under one and only one condition, and that is if you were to use David Quinn's definition.
"Reality is not nothing whatsoever."
Substitute the word Reality for God, and you have a definition of God that can be used as a premiss in an argument. In that logical form, it is an undeniable fact. God, the Totality, Reality, or whatever you want to call it... is not nothing whatsoever.
I know the argument is flawed, but that's what makes me like it. If a Christian were to read it, and come to the final conclusion at the end of the second post, I believe that the premiss that they would be forced to discard would be that God has an explicit definition. Once you take that one out, the whole house falls down.
I may have only taken a few logic courses, but I'm also shrewd enough to know where my logic fails. Argue to have your arguments defeated in specific ways, and your opponents will learn something. Edited by: mookestink at: 6/16/05 5:01
Re: Ontological Thought Experiment
Quote:Quote:<hr>Wrong. It exists in your imagination, which is part of reality. Stop trying to separate thoughts from reality. Thoughts REALLY exist.<hr>
An object in thought[mental reality] does not always exist in the larger - more inclusive [perceptual] reality.
An object in thought[mental reality] does not always exist in the larger - more inclusive [perceptual] reality.
-
Trevor Salyzyn
- Posts: 2420
- Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
- Location: Canada
Re: Ontological Thought Experiment
Quote:Quote:<hr>An object in thought[mental reality] does not always exist in the larger - more inclusive [perceptual] reality.<hr>
What is this magic? You've separated reality into two halves!
I expose your fraud: this is nothing more than the old mind-body dualism come back to haunt us, a dualism which I flatly refuse to acknowledge as valid even in this diluted form. I hold that there is one and only one Reality, and that everything is a part of it.
With your mental reality and your perceptual reality, you'll only create confusion when asked silly little questions like: "do you perceive mental reality? Does that not make mental reality perceptual?"
What is this magic? You've separated reality into two halves!
I expose your fraud: this is nothing more than the old mind-body dualism come back to haunt us, a dualism which I flatly refuse to acknowledge as valid even in this diluted form. I hold that there is one and only one Reality, and that everything is a part of it.
With your mental reality and your perceptual reality, you'll only create confusion when asked silly little questions like: "do you perceive mental reality? Does that not make mental reality perceptual?"
Re: Ontological Thought Experiment
Quote:Quote:<hr>I expose your fraud: this is nothing more than the old mind-body dualism come back to haunt us, a dualism which I flatly refuse to acknowledge as valid even in this diluted form. I hold that there is one and only one Reality, and that everything is a part of it.
<hr>
"A thing can exist in the understanding but not in reality."
For example, if one were to be stranded in the middle of the desert without food or drink and they are nearing the point of starvation and dehydration, then "thinking about" and understanding what food and drink is, does not satiate their hunger and thirst.
A real apple has greater existence than a thought-apple.
Thought reality is a sub-reality of mind.
<hr>
"A thing can exist in the understanding but not in reality."
For example, if one were to be stranded in the middle of the desert without food or drink and they are nearing the point of starvation and dehydration, then "thinking about" and understanding what food and drink is, does not satiate their hunger and thirst.
A real apple has greater existence than a thought-apple.
Thought reality is a sub-reality of mind.
-
Leyla Shen
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
Re: Ontological Thought Experiment
Quote:Quote:<hr>A real apple has greater existence than a thought-apple.<hr>
Then, you must be able to define the properties that make this a truth. Are you simply trying to say that a real apple has more solidity than a thought apple? More time? More quantity? How are you measuring and defining greatness, exactly?
In what way does an neutron have lesser existence than a table - or nuclear fission?
What is greatness?
Then, you must be able to define the properties that make this a truth. Are you simply trying to say that a real apple has more solidity than a thought apple? More time? More quantity? How are you measuring and defining greatness, exactly?
In what way does an neutron have lesser existence than a table - or nuclear fission?
What is greatness?
Re: Ontological Thought Experiment
Quote:Quote:<hr>
Then, you must be able to define the properties that make this a truth. Are you simply trying to say that a real apple has more solidity than a thought apple? More time? More quantity? How are you measuring and defining greatness, exactly?
In what way does an neutron have lesser existence than a table - or nuclear fission?
What is greatness?
<hr>
There exist parameters between abstract reality and concrete reality. Can these parameters, or "boundaries" be precisely explicated at this time?
I don't know but some sort of boundary IS required[else the concrete reality would be a very strange place] therefore their "full definition" is ...not required?
There is a difference, consequently, one can use the disparity to explicate "greater or lesser"
An entity with all maximally great properties can potentiate and instantiate both abstract and concrete reality.
Of course, this thought experiment could be flawed due to its intuitive approach
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: Ontological Thought Experiment
mookestink wrote:
Quote:Quote:<hr>Basically, you can define God into existence under one and only one condition, and that is if you were to use David Quinn's definition.
"Reality is not nothing whatsoever."<hr> It's not a definition of Reality, but rather a logical truth about Reality. It is logically true, and thus beyond all dispute, that Reality is not nothing whatsoever.
Because this logical truth is so easy to recognize (even morons can recognize it), I like to use it as a demonstration of the irrefutable nature of all logical truth. It can help people understand the way in which the deeper, harder-to-grasp truths that enlightened people know are irrefutable in nature.
If you want to know my definition of Reality, it is this: Reality is that which is unchangeable, permanent, beyond life and death, everywhere and everywhen, absolute in nature, and responsible for the existence of all things.
Quote:Quote:<hr> Substitute the word Reality for God, and you have a definition of God that can be used as a premiss in an argument. In that logical form, it is an undeniable fact. God, the Totality, Reality, or whatever you want to call it... is not nothing whatsoever <hr> Your argument only works if "Reality" means the Totality of all there is. It doesn't work for the existence of Christian God or anything else within the Totality.
Simply defining God to be "nothing whatsoever" doesn't prove the existence of the Christian God. The definition is far too vague to prove anything at all. Only when we are talking about Reality as a whole does it become meaningful to conclude that it is not nothing whatsoever.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Basically, you can define God into existence under one and only one condition, and that is if you were to use David Quinn's definition.
"Reality is not nothing whatsoever."<hr> It's not a definition of Reality, but rather a logical truth about Reality. It is logically true, and thus beyond all dispute, that Reality is not nothing whatsoever.
Because this logical truth is so easy to recognize (even morons can recognize it), I like to use it as a demonstration of the irrefutable nature of all logical truth. It can help people understand the way in which the deeper, harder-to-grasp truths that enlightened people know are irrefutable in nature.
If you want to know my definition of Reality, it is this: Reality is that which is unchangeable, permanent, beyond life and death, everywhere and everywhen, absolute in nature, and responsible for the existence of all things.
Quote:Quote:<hr> Substitute the word Reality for God, and you have a definition of God that can be used as a premiss in an argument. In that logical form, it is an undeniable fact. God, the Totality, Reality, or whatever you want to call it... is not nothing whatsoever <hr> Your argument only works if "Reality" means the Totality of all there is. It doesn't work for the existence of Christian God or anything else within the Totality.
Simply defining God to be "nothing whatsoever" doesn't prove the existence of the Christian God. The definition is far too vague to prove anything at all. Only when we are talking about Reality as a whole does it become meaningful to conclude that it is not nothing whatsoever.
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: Ontological Thought Experiment
Analog wrote:
Quote:Quote:<hr>A real apple has greater existence than a thought-apple.<hr> Not true. It might be more solid and physical, but its existence is equal to that of the thought-apple.
When a thought-apple exists, it wholly exists - just as a physical apple wholly exists when it exists.
Quote:Quote:<hr>A real apple has greater existence than a thought-apple.<hr> Not true. It might be more solid and physical, but its existence is equal to that of the thought-apple.
When a thought-apple exists, it wholly exists - just as a physical apple wholly exists when it exists.
Re: Ontological Thought Experiment
The existence of an abstract thought-apple appears to be qualitatively and quantitatively "different", than the existence of a material apple. Both are real, but there is a difference.
different = [not the same]
Since there is a difference, one can use the terms "greater or lesser". :smokin
Re: Ontological Thought Experiment
Let us elaborate. Since thoughts exist, thoughts are "real" in the sense that we experience them. Do thoughts[abstract] have a real effect on the concrete reality?
Yes, but the effect does not appear to be a direct linear relationship. For example, thoughts have helped humans to mold reality in many different ways. But there is never a "something for nothing" wishful instantiation of thought-reality.
Yes, but the effect does not appear to be a direct linear relationship. For example, thoughts have helped humans to mold reality in many different ways. But there is never a "something for nothing" wishful instantiation of thought-reality.
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: Ontological Thought Experiment
Analog wrote:
Quote:Quote:<hr>The existence of an abstract thought-apple appears to be qualitatively and quantitatively "different", than the existence of a material apple. Both are real, but there is a difference.<hr> Their properties differ, but their existence, as a fact, is identical.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Let us elaborate. Since thoughts exist, thoughts are "real" in the sense that we experience them. Do thoughts[abstract] have a real effect on the concrete reality?
Yes, but the effect does not appear to be a direct linear relationship. For example, thoughts have helped humans to mold reality in many different ways. But there is never a "something for nothing" wishful instantiation of thought-reality.<hr> Of course, but that doesn't make them any less existent. Thoughts obviously have their limitations, but so does everything else. Trees cannot run and dance, for example, but that doesn't make them any less existent.
Quote:Quote:<hr>The existence of an abstract thought-apple appears to be qualitatively and quantitatively "different", than the existence of a material apple. Both are real, but there is a difference.<hr> Their properties differ, but their existence, as a fact, is identical.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Let us elaborate. Since thoughts exist, thoughts are "real" in the sense that we experience them. Do thoughts[abstract] have a real effect on the concrete reality?
Yes, but the effect does not appear to be a direct linear relationship. For example, thoughts have helped humans to mold reality in many different ways. But there is never a "something for nothing" wishful instantiation of thought-reality.<hr> Of course, but that doesn't make them any less existent. Thoughts obviously have their limitations, but so does everything else. Trees cannot run and dance, for example, but that doesn't make them any less existent.
-
Trevor Salyzyn
- Posts: 2420
- Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
- Location: Canada
Re: Ontological Thought Experiment
David Quinn:
Quote:Quote:<hr>If you want to know my definition of Reality, it is this: Reality is that which is unchangeable, permanent, beyond life and death, everywhere and everywhen, absolute in nature, and responsible for the existence of all things. <hr>
Ah, thanks. I notice that you compensate for each objection by simply incorporating it into the definition of Reality.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Your argument only works if "Reality" means the Totality of all there is. It doesn't work for the existence of Christian God or anything else within the Totality. <hr>
Yes, I know. I just went the extra step and called it 'God' because that antiquated word can always stand to be burdened with a few more definitions. Also, it confuses Christians in argument and makes them believe I'm on their side. (until, of course, I admit that I've never read the Bible and fully intend never to do so)
Quote:Quote:<hr>If you want to know my definition of Reality, it is this: Reality is that which is unchangeable, permanent, beyond life and death, everywhere and everywhen, absolute in nature, and responsible for the existence of all things. <hr>
Ah, thanks. I notice that you compensate for each objection by simply incorporating it into the definition of Reality.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Your argument only works if "Reality" means the Totality of all there is. It doesn't work for the existence of Christian God or anything else within the Totality. <hr>
Yes, I know. I just went the extra step and called it 'God' because that antiquated word can always stand to be burdened with a few more definitions. Also, it confuses Christians in argument and makes them believe I'm on their side. (until, of course, I admit that I've never read the Bible and fully intend never to do so)
-
Leyla Shen
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
OTE with a sharp, Objectivist twist
Quote:Quote:<hr>There exist parameters between abstract reality and concrete reality. Can these parameters, or "boundaries" be precisely explicated at this time?<hr>
Abstract and concrete are all part of the one reality -- they are the parameters, “at this time.â€
Quote:Quote:<hr>I don't know but some sort of boundary IS required[else the concrete reality would be a very strange place] therefore their "full definition" is ...not required?<hr>
See above.
Quote:Quote:<hr>There is a difference, consequently, one can use the disparity to explicate "greater or lesser"<hr>
So, you have come to value things that are solid and thus, apparently, more permanent?
Quote:Quote:<hr>An entity with all maximally great properties can potentiate and instantiate both abstract and concrete reality.<hr>
Wot? What maximally “great†properties?
Quote:Quote:<hr>Of course, this thought experiment could be flawed due to its intuitive approach.<hr>
Yes, it could be.
Abstract and concrete are all part of the one reality -- they are the parameters, “at this time.â€
Quote:Quote:<hr>I don't know but some sort of boundary IS required[else the concrete reality would be a very strange place] therefore their "full definition" is ...not required?<hr>
See above.
Quote:Quote:<hr>There is a difference, consequently, one can use the disparity to explicate "greater or lesser"<hr>
So, you have come to value things that are solid and thus, apparently, more permanent?
Quote:Quote:<hr>An entity with all maximally great properties can potentiate and instantiate both abstract and concrete reality.<hr>
Wot? What maximally “great†properties?
Quote:Quote:<hr>Of course, this thought experiment could be flawed due to its intuitive approach.<hr>
Yes, it could be.
Re: OTE with a sharp, Objectivist twist
Quote:Quote:<hr>Abstract and concrete are all part of the one reality -- they are the parameters, “at this time.â€<hr>
Abstract reality is not equivalent to concrete reality.
1 and 2 are both numbers but 1 does not equal 2.
Abstract and concrete are categorically different.
Quote:Quote:<hr>So, you have come to value things that are solid and thus, apparently, more permanent?<hr>
Actually, it appears that abstract thought forms are much more "permanent" than "solid things". Solid things are beholden to thermodynamic processes, whereas abstract forms are timeless.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Wot? What maximally “great†properties?<hr>
A maximal greatness does not necessarily mean "infinite" greatness, thus the conceptual baggage that comes along with the idea of infinity is avoided.
Edited by: analog57 at: 6/18/05 16:45
Abstract reality is not equivalent to concrete reality.
1 and 2 are both numbers but 1 does not equal 2.
Abstract and concrete are categorically different.
Quote:Quote:<hr>So, you have come to value things that are solid and thus, apparently, more permanent?<hr>
Actually, it appears that abstract thought forms are much more "permanent" than "solid things". Solid things are beholden to thermodynamic processes, whereas abstract forms are timeless.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Wot? What maximally “great†properties?<hr>
A maximal greatness does not necessarily mean "infinite" greatness, thus the conceptual baggage that comes along with the idea of infinity is avoided.
Edited by: analog57 at: 6/18/05 16:45
Re: Ontological Thought Experiment
Quote:Quote:<hr>Their properties differ, but their existence, as a fact, is identical.<hr>
The "fact" of existence is a given. That must be accepted as a self evident truth. But the existence of a "singular" human thought and the existence of a mutually, and statistically-invariantly-percieved existence ARE different from each other.
Abstract and concrete, form a complementary duality.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Of course, but that doesn't make them any less existent. Thoughts obviously have their limitations, but so does everything else. Trees cannot run and dance, for example, but that doesn't make them any less existent.<hr>
Thoughts within a human mind can be categorized as subsets or "sub-realities" of some larger, uniformly perceived reality - both exist as a "fact" but both are categorically different.
The "fact" of existence is a given. That must be accepted as a self evident truth. But the existence of a "singular" human thought and the existence of a mutually, and statistically-invariantly-percieved existence ARE different from each other.
Abstract and concrete, form a complementary duality.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Of course, but that doesn't make them any less existent. Thoughts obviously have their limitations, but so does everything else. Trees cannot run and dance, for example, but that doesn't make them any less existent.<hr>
Thoughts within a human mind can be categorized as subsets or "sub-realities" of some larger, uniformly perceived reality - both exist as a "fact" but both are categorically different.
-
Leyla Shen
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
Re: OTE with a sharp, Objectivist twist
Quote:Quote:<hr>LS: Abstract and concrete are all part of the one reality -- they are the parameters, “at this time.â€<hr>
Quote:Quote:<hr>A57: Abstract reality is not equivalent to concrete reality.<hr>
Wow. How funny. Are we speaking the same language, or what?
Firstly, how do you infer concrete and abstract equivalence from what I wrote?
Quote:Quote:<hr>A57: Abstract reality is not equivalent to concrete reality.<hr>
Wow. How funny. Are we speaking the same language, or what?
Firstly, how do you infer concrete and abstract equivalence from what I wrote?
-
Trevor Salyzyn
- Posts: 2420
- Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
- Location: Canada
Re: OTE with a sharp, Objectivist twist
Quote:Quote:<hr>Abstract and concrete, form a complementary duality. <hr>
What problem is solved by creating this duality?
We know what problem is created: there is now a duality that wasn't there before.
What problem is solved by creating this duality?
We know what problem is created: there is now a duality that wasn't there before.
-
Leyla Shen
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
Re: OTE with a sharp, Objectivist twist
Secondly,
Quote:Quote:<hr>A maximal greatness does not necessarily mean "infinite" greatness, thus the conceptual baggage that comes along with the idea of infinity is avoided. <hr>
But you still haven't told me what it does mean. Is it some nebulous idea that sits in the centre of a bunch of what-it's-nots?
Quote:Quote:<hr>A maximal greatness does not necessarily mean "infinite" greatness, thus the conceptual baggage that comes along with the idea of infinity is avoided. <hr>
But you still haven't told me what it does mean. Is it some nebulous idea that sits in the centre of a bunch of what-it's-nots?