GENIUS FORUMS

Kevin to Steven;

Why is it true that you are having experiences right now?

Steven mentioned a post earlier…

The reason why objects exist is that the absence of the ability to exist is impossible, and if the absence of the ability to exist is impossible, everything must exist. Absolutely everything.

Does that not answer the question? What is the difference between object and a thing, and isn’t ‘experiencing’ a thing one can talk about?

Does not 'expereince' exist by the same virtue that it must?

The truth may be that the opposite is not possible.

Sapius wrote:Kevin to Steven;

Steven wrote:The reason why objects exist is that the absence of the ability to exist is impossible, and if the absence of the ability to exist is impossible, everything must exist. Absolutely everything.

Does that not answer the question?

It doesn't sound right to me. "The absence of the ability to exist is impossible." There is no Martian in front of me at the moment, thus there is an absence of the ability for such a thing to exist in front of me at the moment.

Even if the quoted text can be interpreted in some meaningful fashion, I think it's too wordy.

What is the difference between object and a thing

I don't know, as I'm not sure exactly what it means to Steven.

and isn’t ‘experiencing’ a thing one can talk about?

Certainly.

Does not 'expereince' exist by the same virtue that it must?

Yes.

The truth may be that the opposite is not possible.

When there is no experience, then experience doesn't exist.

Kevin Solway wrote:

Sapius wrote:Kevin to Steven;

Steven wrote:The reason why objects exist is that the absence of the ability to exist is impossible, and if the absence of the ability to exist is impossible, everything must exist. Absolutely everything.

Does that not answer the question?

It doesn't sound right to me. "The absence of the ability to exist is impossible." There is no Martian in front of me at the moment, thus there is an absence of the ability for such a thing to exist in front of me at the moment.

"Shut up and calculate!"

I asked you, what does quantum mechanics say?

Ataraxia: Kevin has kept it simple,undeniable "everything =everything".This statement doesn't have the potential to be false.Yours does.

Laird: Kevin also asserts that this "everything" is infinite. That statement has the potential to be false.

Ataraxia: It depends how you define the word 'infinite'.If he uses this definition then it is a true statement....

in·fi·nite /??nf?n?t/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-fuh-nit] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective

4. unbounded or unlimited; boundless; endless:

ie. not finite.

That's also what I mean by "infinite" but I don't see how one can ever know that everything that exists is infinite, as I've attempted time and again to explain in this thread. How are you ever going to know that everything that exists is not finite instead? This is not a matter that you can work out in your head: it's a property of existence. How can this property (infinite vs finite) be measured? The best that we can do is to come up with scientific models based upon our observations of the universe.

Well I suppose we are at an impasse then Laird.

Personally I can't see how absolute nothingness can exist which is what 'Lairds Totality' requires if it is said to be finite,bounded.

Furthermore, I can't see how you expect scientists will recognise this absolute nothingness to contrast with your totality when they 'see' it.

Ataraxia wrote:Well I suppose we are at an impasse then Laird.

Yes, it looks that way.

Ataraxia wrote:Personally I can't see how absolute nothingness can exist which is what 'Lairds Totality' requires if it is said to be finite,bounded.

I don't think that it's even appropriate to say that absolute nothingness "exists". It would be more a complete lack of existence. No space-time (no dimensions), no form, no energy, no matter, certainly no life. None of the things that we typically associate with existence. Sorry if it seems like I'm picking nits - I'm just trying to clarify my position to you.

Ataraxia wrote:Furthermore, I can't see how you expect scientists will recognise this absolute nothingness to contrast with your totality when they 'see' it.

I don't know enough about cosmology and the physics of the universe to be able to do much more than hazard a small guess: they would not so much see it as infer it from their model of the universe which itself was formed through observations; perhaps they could make certain predictions out of their finite-universe model that could be tested... dunno really. As with all science they could be wrong, but that's what I've been arguing all along: in these universal matters, any one of us could be wrong - none of us can make claim to absolute truth.

Are you really that convinced in the necessity of an infinite universe?

Kevin Solway wrote:

Sapius wrote:Kevin to Steven;

Steven wrote:The reason why objects exist is that the absence of the ability to exist is impossible, and if the absence of the ability to exist is impossible, everything must exist. Absolutely everything.

Does that not answer the question?

It doesn't sound right to me. "The absence of the ability to exist is impossible." There is no Martian in front of me at the moment, thus there is an absence of the ability for such a thing to exist in front of me at the moment.

Even if the quoted text can be interpreted in some meaningful fashion, I think it's too wordy.

What is the difference between object and a thing

I don't know, as I'm not sure exactly what it means to Steven.

and isn’t ‘experiencing’ a thing one can talk about?

Certainly.

Does not 'expereince' exist by the same virtue that it must?

Yes.

The truth may be that the opposite is not possible.

When there is no experience, then experience doesn't exist.

If every thing has no beginning or end, then by the same reasoning, why can't "experiencing" itself have no beginning or end? How can one know that some sort of "experiencing" is not happening somewhere in and of existence/Totality?

Existence requires experiencing (awareness), otherwise it is not, and since existence cannot not be then experiencing too cannot not be. Existence and awareness seem to go hand in hand, irrelevant of my personal experiences.

Ataraxia wrote:Well I suppose we are at an impasse then Laird.

Personally I can't see how absolute nothingness can exist which is what 'Lairds Totality' requires if it is said to be finite,bounded.

It would be bounded by the impossibility of absolute nothingness. You need consider why absolute nothing is impossible, and then apply that to conceptual entities in question. Absolute nothing is self negating, demanding existence which would imply that infinity if not self negating must exist, which would remove the problem of the boundary you are speaking of, but none the less define a boundary.

You cannot think of absolute nothing being on the other side of everything because that is not the relationship. It is not a spatial relationship, which is the relationship almost always considered between conceptual entities. The relationship is a relationship of negation, of paradox, between the two most fundamental states of possibility. Existence is bounded by possibility, but it cannot be bounded spatially, physically or any other way.

If Lairds Totality is bounded by absolute nothingness in any other manner other than possibility, then it is impossible to account for the Totality being. A simple duality will not suffice to explain how "a void" gives rise to anything. The "void" needs no accountability or justification if it is possible, and if it is possible it can offer no justification for proliferating non-absent things.

It is by virtue of the alternative to existence being impossible that gives rise to the distinction between possibility and impossible, and the necessity for all possibility to be present. Impossible cannot be possible, and if it is impossible it is self negating. The distinction and the boundary is between the fundamental states of existence, all that is possible and the paradox of the existence of the impossible. It is not objects themselves that are present, but their possibility.

We observe possibility. Those objects, events and occurances that are of the highest possibility in relation to our own state of possibility are those that make themselves known to us directly. The true Universe is an underlying heaving morasse of all possibility regardless of scale, of which we are a possible part and of which we are dimly aware. The superficial Universe of which we are highly aware are the possibility peaks that are highest only in the subject context of what our probability is.

Underlying this is the paradox of the possibility of impossible, the impossibility of the impossible, the existence of the impossible, the absence of the possible. The boundary is obvious, the boundary between the possible and impossible, but it is not a boundary that exists because the impossible would have to exist, it cannot be probed, and there cannot be anything beyond it.

Laird wrote: Are you really that convinced in the necessity of an infinite universe?

An infinite totality I am, yes.It is a logical necessity.

Have a bit more of a think about.

What you are proposing is either:

A does not equal not(-A)
or
Science will conclusively discover something without using logic.

Seriously mate.How can science make a discovery of "utterly everything IS (or'=')finite"?

Wow, I think I'm gonna cum!!!

Laird: Are you really that convinced in the necessity of an infinite universe?

Ataraxia: An infinite totality I am, yes.It is a logical necessity.

Well then we really are at an impasse. Out of interest, did you hold this conviction prior to coming into contact with QRS or is this conviction due to their reasoning?

Ataraxia wrote:What you are proposing is either:

A does not equal not(-A)

I see it more as that you are proposing that for every A there must be a ~A. From where does this necessity arise?

Ataraxia wrote:or
Science will conclusively discover something without using logic.

Seriously mate.How can science make a discovery of "utterly everything IS (or'=')finite"?

I'm not saying that science will ever be conclusive, although I'm not denying the possibility either. What I am saying is that logic in isolation from empiricism can tell us nothing about whether the universe (or "Totality" if you will) is finite or infinite.

Dan Rowden wrote:Wow, I think I'm gonna cum!!!

Share the lurve with us, Dan. Who/what inspired this response?

Laird wrote:

Laird: Are you really that convinced in the necessity of an infinite universe?

Ataraxia: An infinite totality I am, yes.It is a logical necessity.

Well then we really are at an impasse. Out of interest, did you hold this conviction prior to coming into contact with QRS or is this conviction due to their reasoning?

Prior.But QSR has been useful for helping me clear up my thinking on other things.

If it's any consolation I don't see the necessity of God=everything.That realization may or may not come.It doesn't seem essential to me anyway.

I'll let you get back to arguing with Kevin given he lives next door as I 've just discovered.-I feel like he's going to get the free beers while I do the work :-D

Ataraxia wrote:I'll let you get back to arguing with Kevin given he lives next door as I 've just discovered.-I feel like he's going to get the free beers while I do the work :-D

Next time I'm in Melbourne then I'll buy you a beer - good enough?

Laird wrote:

Ataraxia wrote:I'll let you get back to arguing with Kevin given he lives next door as I 've just discovered.-I feel like he's going to get the free beers while I do the work :-D

Next time I'm in Melbourne then I'll buy you a beer - good enough?

Sounds good. I was only kidding around though,I've actually enjoyed this thread.Nothing helps clear the mind better than thinking about everything :)

Laird wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:Wow, I think I'm gonna cum!!!

Share the lurve with us, Dan. Who/what inspired this response?

Well, this is the most exciting discussion in the history of discussion, isn't it? Actually, I may be thinking of the Cui Bono thread.....

Btw, Laird, what is your definition of "thing"? Sorry if this thread already contains it; I can't be bothered wading through it all, exciting as it is :)

Dan Rowden wrote:Btw, Laird, what is your definition of "thing"? Sorry if this thread already contains it; I can't be bothered wading through it all, exciting as it is :)

I haven't thought too carefully about it, but to me "thing" is one of the broadest words in our language - it can apply to almost anything. :-P

This is very rough and subject to change but I'll attempt a definition here: the referent of any noun; any concept or object.

No doubt the dictionary does better, so let me trot off and find the dictionary.com definition... wow, you know what?: it has twenty-two separate definitions. The first one is probably closest to what I'm trying to get at, except that my definition doesn't limit a thing to an inanimate object:
"1. a material object without life or consciousness; an inanimate object."

I think that I prefer my definition to this one. In my opinion a person or other living entity can be a thing - witness: "She was a pretty young thing". Oh, hang on, that's definition 12 so they do recognise that after all:
"12. a living being or creature: His baby's a cute little thing." [italics theirs]

But I recommend reading through the dictionary.com list - there are so many different ways in which we use the word "thing". Quite eye-opening.

Oh, hey, scrolling down to the next set of dictionary entries (the American Heritage Dictionary) on that page I find words similar to mine:
"3. Something referred to by a word, a symbol, a sign, or an idea; a referent."
And I like the first entry for that dictionary - it's pretty much what I would like to say except that I'd like to say it less verbosely:
"1. An entity, an idea, or a quality perceived, known, or thought to have its own existence."

One thing that my definition lacks that I've noticed after reading through these dictionary definitions is that a thing can also be an event or a quality, not just an object. So I'll amend my definition to: "the referent of any noun; any concept, object, entity, quality or event (where an entity might be living)."

Cool, thanks. So, is "nothingness" a thing?

Dan Rowden wrote:Cool, thanks. So, is "nothingness" a thing?

The concept of nothingness is a thing, but nothingness itself is (by definition) not a thing.

Why not?

Laird wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:Cool, thanks. So, is "nothingness" a thing?

The concept of nothingness is a thing, but nothingness itself is (by definition) not a thing.

Would there be a difference if I replaced 'nothingness' with 'Totality'?

Dan Rowden wrote:Why not?

Well the simple answer is the one that I already gave: by definition. Look at the way that the word is constructed: "nothingness". No-thing-ness. Not-a-thing-ness. I mean, it's pretty straightforward and undeniable.

But if you want something more elaborate, let's look at the components of my definition and see that none of them apply: I've defined a thing as a "concept, object, entity, quality or event".

* concept: I've already acknowledged that the concept of nothingness can be considered to be a thing, but we're talking now about the actuality of nothingness, so clearly "concept" doesn't apply.
* object: it's called no-thing-ness for a reason; namely that it is not an object and does not contain any objects - it is devoid of anything.
* entity: as above.
* quality: "nothingness" is an absence of all qualities.
* event: "nothingness" doesn't refer to any happening; it is a complete lack of happenings.

Dan: So, is "nothingness" a thing?

Laird: The concept of nothingness is a thing, but nothingness itself is (by definition) not a thing.

Sapius: Would there be a difference if I replaced 'nothingness' with 'Totality'?

Yes, there would. "The Totality" is an entity; it is also a noun, so by my definition it is a thing.

Laird wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:Btw, Laird, what is your definition of "thing"? Sorry if this thread already contains it; I can't be bothered wading through it all, exciting as it is :)

I haven't thought too carefully about it,

Ah.

-