GENIUS FORUMS

Neil Melnyk wrote:

xerox wrote:Is = absolute.
Are = absolute.

Therefore the statement "there is no absolute" is self refuting.

My "is" and "are" are not absolute. I am the one making the statement. Please don't take it out of context.

If that was what you really meant then why didn't you say something like, "There probably is no absolute." It looks to me like you're doing nothing here but trying to avoid responsibility for what you said.

Neil,

All possible worlds that... you can imagine? All possible worlds that conform to the rules of your grammar?

Please don't add this nonsense to a perfectly sound bit of sense. Your obsession with making things more complicated than they are is what got you into this pickle in the first place.

Oh now he is going to whip out the english definition of a "world"!

No, I won't. As Dave mentioned, I'm in Wittgenstein country. You could simply read that.

We don't even understand our own world

Speak for yourself.

(and we cannot)

Why is it that agnostics always feel the need to make their inability to grasp the universal truths of metaphysics a universal condition of mankind?

These terms are abstract and fictional. We made them up. They don't describe anything we know of. They only describe abstract and fictional worlds that we create in our minds.

There is nothing abstract about philosophy. Your belief that concepts like "world" are abstract might be your problem.

Dave,

Do you have an idea of how to go about forming such a definition?

Get ready for nerdage.

I would try to present the word "correspond" such that it fulfilled the grammatical requirement of the verb "to be" (in particular, the word "is"), without the baggage of assumptions about existence. Claiming that one thing corresponds to another would, therefore, be an epistemological claim. Just as identity (A=A) is metaphysical, the claim "identity corresponds to a fact" would be epistemological .

The particulars of this definition are, at the moment, beyond me. It's quite hard to deal with theories of knowledge without also suggesting some underlying assumption about reality. If it is impossible to separate metaphysics from epistemology, which I suspect, then the definition of correspondence would have to use some form of circularity (eg. it must be assumed that there are facts that can correspond to correspondence).

Such intense circularity does not, thankfully enough, always imply falsehood. Sartre's theory of consciousness was saved from being gibberish by being circular (that a consciousness must be a self-consciousness), and I believe the formalist theory of art (art creates aesthetic emotions, and aesthetic emotions define art) is also circular. Circularity is an open wound, but it's not lethal.

Trevor,

NM: All possible worlds that... you can imagine? All possible worlds that conform to the rules of your grammar?

TS: Please don't add this nonsense to a perfectly sound bit of sense. Your obsession with making things more complicated than they are is what got you into this pickle in the first place.

So is that an affirmative: you can confine all possible worlds within english grammar? Do you think there might be a possible "world" that you cannot imagine or describe?

NM: We don't even understand our own world

TS: Speak for yourself.

None of you understand our world, you simply have some metaphysical theories that you assert as the absolute truth.

NM: (and we cannot)

TS: Why is it that agnostics always feel the need to make their inability to grasp the universal truths of metaphysics a universal condition of mankind?

Lol you haven't gotten over metaphysics yet? I made a thread for it awhile back perhaps you missed it.

NM: These terms are abstract and fictional. We made them up. They don't describe anything we know of. They only describe abstract and fictional worlds that we create in our minds.

TS: There is nothing abstract about philosophy. Your belief that concepts like "world" are abstract might be your problem.

You will need to define "world". It can be used in an abstract (the earth) and non-abstract (the universe) way. When you speak of "all possible worlds" you are using the term in an abstract manner.

Neil,

So is that an affirmative: you can confine all possible worlds within english grammar?

Language describes concepts, and can thus be used to point to features of reality. Any language, in the hands of any sage, can be used to describe any truth. The only limit is his facility with truth.

Do you think there might be a possible "world" that you cannot imagine or describe?

No, I cannot imagine a world that I cannot imagine.

None of you understand our world, you simply have some metaphysical theories that you assert as the absolute truth.

When you prove that a single one of these metaphysical theories is wrong (for instance, that causality does not describe every thing in reality), you gain the ability to criticize. However, you did not do that. Your criticism is flat-out false.

Lol you haven't gotten over metaphysics yet? I made a thread for it awhile back perhaps you missed it.

No, I cannot reach the top of an infinite ladder, just as I cannot climb over the top of it into something else. Metaphysics leads to nothing but more metaphysics, and you seem to have completely lost track of this point as you compliment your self for discovering your new metaphysical outlook (one which, by and large, everyone in this forum has listened to someone else talk about after he discovered it).

You will need to define "world".

Wittgenstein did an adequate job in "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus". As far as language goes, I am not on par with Wittgenstein, so I recommend that you read some of his works, instead of suffering listening to his beliefs reiterated through me.

When you speak of "all possible worlds" you are using the term in an abstract manner.

False. "All possible worlds" is among the single most concrete and immediate phrases that exist in language. At the moment, the only concepts I can think of that are more immediate and all-inclusive than the world (which is the philosophic term for what most people crudely call "all possible worlds") are "Being" and "Dasein".

Trevor,

Language describes concepts, and can thus be used to point to features of reality. Any language, in the hands of any sage, can be used to describe any truth. The only limit is his facility with truth.
...
No, I cannot imagine a world that I cannot imagine.

You are so wise and almighty that there is zero possibility of anything that you cannot describe existing, or anything that you cannot imagine... AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

When you prove that a single one of these metaphysical theories is wrong (for instance, that causality does not describe every thing in reality), you gain the ability to criticize. However, you did not do that. Your criticism is flat-out false.

I don't need to prove anything wrong; in fact one cannot really prove anything wrong. Nice try though; are you borrowing your arguments from Christians now? Metaphysics is one big error that you will be able to get over when you realize how it misuses language.

NM: When you speak of "all possible worlds" you are using the term in an abstract manner.

TS: False. "All possible worlds" is among the single most concrete and immediate phrases that exist in language. At the moment, the only concepts I can think of that are more immediate and all-inclusive than the world (which is the philosophic term for what most people crudely call "all possible worlds") are "Being" and "Dasein".

Wtf? All these terms are completely abstract. At least you are pointing to some real observation when you say "tree" or "frying pan", and this is how language evolved for practical use. You can talk of "being" and "worlds" but both are abstract concepts that bear zero relation and have zero restricting limits on reality.

Neil,
1) can you imagine a world that you cannot imagine?
2) are you or are you not trying to prove me wrong?
3) what makes the word "is" in the sentence "a tree is a tree" more abstract than the word "tree"?

All verbal and written language is abstract.

Cyberspace is monodimensional; just a string of bits. As such, it can be transmitted, or penetrate any other set of dimensions. i read where Quantum Physics says there are 10 or 11 dimensions, depending on which Bishop you listen to.
Be that as it may, and we know that 3 will produce a Matrix. if you iterate the combinations, there are lotsa others, and that's just the dimensions our math says must exist, without saying how many can exist.

Time itself may be variable, so theres' no way of knowing whether the rules of what passes for logic are universal. "Time's Arrow" comes to mind, There is a certain logic in a Matrix in which effects precede causes. I could prolly get usta it. I got usta Heisenburg's disconnect between cause and certainty.

Wherever your Matrix is, whatever it is like, you can define 'absolute truth' any way you like.

Trevor,

1) can you imagine a world that you cannot imagine?

You are twisting the original question. I have no problem admitting that there may or may not be worlds that I cannot imagine. I am simply saying that I make no claim to be able to think of every "possible world", let alone to try and apply our grammatical conventions to these hypothetical worlds.

2) are you or are you not trying to prove me wrong?

There is no proving either way. I am trying to get you to see what many others see: that metaphysical theories are baseless.

3) what makes the word "is" in the sentence "a tree is a tree" more abstract than the word "tree"?

The difference between saying "look... a tree!" and "all possible worlds must be X, Y and Z" is that the former relates directly to reality whereas the latter is abstract and does not relate directly to reality.

"Tree" is a concept. It is a generalization of empirical observations that I see. These observations are all dissimilar but they share similar features and this concept has practical use that allows me to know, for example, that when I identify a "tree", there might be a "snake" in it, because many other trees I have seen have these "snakes" in them. You can see how this concept is practical. On the other hand, it is a major generalization.

On the other hand, "all possible worlds" has utterly zero meaning. What is a "world"? Well originally the term would describe the land we are living in or the planet we are living on. Then the metaphysicians theorized that there might be other "worlds" out there. We don't know if anything is out there or if there are any other worlds or even understand the fundamentals of our "world". Even if we understood the fundamentals of our "world" we couldn't claim that "all possible worlds" must be similar to our "world" or follow the same rules unless we completely understood the whole context in which "all possible worlds" were. Yet this is entirely meaningless because we don't even understand our own. Our own "world" is originally just a concept itself, and as we know concepts have only practical use. Metaphysicians forget all this and think that they can take a whole bunch of english terms, cut off all the history of these terms, forget how these terms were created, and take the definitions as binding laws of "existence" itself. The "world" and "existence" that metaphysicians deal with is a concept world. It is already not real. Furthermore, all the laws and deductions about this "world" ultimately stem from our language which evolved for practical purposes. Now we should be able to see how baseless the whole of metaphysics is and what a huge error it was.

Neil,

I am simply saying that I make no claim to be able to think of every "possible world", let alone to try and apply our grammatical conventions to these hypothetical worlds.

"All possible worlds" refers to all possible worlds. I can imagine all possible worlds, but I cannot imagine a world that exists that is not part of all possible worlds, nor can I even begin to conceive of a world that I cannot imagine. I may not know the specifics of all possible worlds, but I can certainly refer to them all and make sense when I do so.

There is no proving either way. I am trying to get you to see what many others see: that metaphysical theories are baseless.

So you are trying to prove that all metaphysical theories are baseless. In the above quotation, your proof is roughly: "some people believe that metaphysics is baseless, therefore metaphysics is baseless."

You should not blame me for not being able to consider this adequate, especially considering that I know a shit-ton more about metaphysics than you -- including the metaphysical assumptions that you are making, but refusing to admit that you are making as soon as someone uses the word "metaphysics" to describe it.

Do you fear the word "metaphysics"? Well, then! Metaphysics! Metaphysics! Metaphysics! Metaphysics! Metaphysics! Metaphysics!

Heh... maybe you'd like it if I broke metaphysics apart into "epistemology", "ontology", and "general, undeniable claims about logic"? Would that help you understand it better?

On the other hand, "all possible worlds" has utterly zero meaning.

No, it refers to all possible worlds. If you don't understand the meaning of that phrase, then you need to consult a dictionary. But I'll be kind and give you a philosophic definition:

"All" means that not a single object that meets the following requirements is excluded from the set.
"Possible" means that impossible objects are excluded from the set.
"Worlds" shows which ontological feature is being specified.

Instead of worlds, I could take a different ontological feature of reality, say, "forms of energy", or "forms of matter".

Does "all possible forms of energy" make sense? Does "all possible forms of matter" make sense? If not, then your problems are more severe than I know how to resolve, and your difficulty with metaphysics may be a result of some deep-seated emotional or physiological problem.

divine focus: calling all language "abstract" destroys the use (and hence, the meaning) of the word "abstract". It is, therefore, not true that all language is abstract. Some language is concrete; some is abstract. Distinguishing between the two forms of language is as necessary as distinguishing between verbs and nouns.

It is ultimately that true there is no distinction between such things, and as such you could just as easily call all language "concrete", but why make thought so difficult? Making distinctions is part of communication, and the distinction between abstract and concrete is meaningful.

My point of contention is that the word "is" is more concrete than the word "tree". "Is" refers to an immediate access to existence, whereas "tree" refers merely to an appearance.

daybrown,

Wherever your Matrix is, whatever it is like, you can define 'absolute truth' any way you like.

Unfortunately, when you do so, you are not helping yourself one whit in learning the true nature of reality. You are playing Solitaire with words; there are many better things that you could be using language for.

Trevor,

"All possible worlds" refers to all possible worlds. I can imagine all possible worlds, but I cannot imagine a world that exists that is not part of all possible worlds, nor can I even begin to conceive of a world that I cannot imagine. I may not know the specifics of all possible worlds, but I can certainly refer to them all and make sense when I do so.

You have acknowledged that "all possible worlds" to you is limited. Do you believe that reality is limited by your mind? Do you really believe you are that powerful? You should probably join Jehu about now arguing that you are god.

NM: On the other hand, "all possible worlds" has utterly zero meaning.

TS: No, it refers to all possible worlds. If you don't understand the meaning of that phrase, then you need to consult a dictionary.

I am not a metaphysician, I don't consult an english dictionary as authority on reality.

"All" means that not a single object that meets the following requirements is excluded from the set.

"All bananas in the bunch are rotten" - practical use. "All things in existence, whatever that is" - abstract use.

"Possible" means that impossible objects are excluded from the set.

No, it means things that you can conceive of and that don't break the rules of english grammar!

"Worlds" shows which ontological feature is being specified.

World... some type of abstract theoretical ontological concept.

Does "all possible forms of energy" make sense? Does "all possible forms of matter" make sense?

Nope. Nor would "all possible trees".

Trevor,

So you are trying to prove that all metaphysical theories are baseless. In the above quotation, your proof is roughly: "some people believe that metaphysics is baseless, therefore metaphysics is baseless."

Haha. Go ask master David if he engages in metaphysics. His answer was "no" last time I checked, though we never really got into it. I bet your stance on this would change in a lightning flash, perhaps you were just playing the devil's advocate the whole time as that time when you claimed you were enlightened.... :)

Neil,

You should probably join Jehu about now arguing that you are god.

I made no such claims, nor did I claim anything even remotely similar to that position, so I know you are misrepresenting my position. Do you understand your motive for doing this?

I am not a metaphysician, I don't consult an english dictionary as authority on reality.

I was suggesting you consult a dictionary as an authority on the English language, since you seem so utterly incapable of understanding the simplest and most universal of English phrases. Actually, I jest: most people have no fucking idea how to deal with philosophic concepts. For instance, the idea of "willing something" confounds the sensibilities of the common man, even though he uses the word "will" all the time.

The exclamation "I will do this!" is a combination of many surprisingly difficult concepts: self-hood, the will, action, and a variable pointer. In comparison, the concept of "the world" is easy to understand.

"All bananas in the bunch are rotten" - practical use. "All things in existence, whatever that is" - abstract use.

The first quotation would be in reference to an appearance, the latter quotation would only be spoken of someone who is uncertain. They are both concrete: one man is looking at the world, and the other man is confused. These are clear states of the world that attest to no abstraction.

1+1=2 is abstract; "all things in existence" is not.

No, it means things that you can conceive of and that don't break the rules of english grammar!

Pardon my language, but what the fuck? Possible is the opposite of impossible. When I say possible, I may as well be saying "not impossible". Don't try to add bullshit to what I say. As I said, it is that problem which lead you into this confusing state in the first place.

World... some type of abstract theoretical ontological concept.

You used too many words. That is a sign of inefficiency. World is an ontological concept. Plain and simple. If you want to call it more than simply an ontological concept, you will have to add each new adjective one at a time, and prove that each is valid. As it stands, since my perception of the world is more immediate and concrete even than my perception of the computer screen in front of me, and my computer screen is concrete, the word "abstract" is inaccurate. As to "theoretical" -- what is that opposed to? Empirical?

Nope. Nor would "all possible trees".

Well then, I can't help you. You are likely suffering from severe emotional distress or an ailment. There is no third alternative: I refuse to believe that someone would wilfully be so ignorant.

Not being able to conceive of all possible objects is a very severe problem. I wish you luck in trying to resolve it.

Go ask master David if he engages in metaphysics. His answer was "no" last time I checked, though we never really got into it.

One last comment, since this made me laugh in the mocking laughter of someone who finds his audience repulsive.

A clue to the clueless: David speaks of nothing but metaphysics. There is no other philosophic topic that seems to interest him. He has an itch about academia that prevents him from using some of their terms, no matter how accurate.

Trevor,

NM: You should probably join Jehu about now arguing that you are god.

TS: I made no such claims, nor did I claim anything even remotely similar to that position, so I know you are misrepresenting my position. Do you understand your motive for doing this?

Changing the subject as usual. Is it possible that there are worlds that you cannot conceive of or that cannot be pinned down by the english definitions, or not?

Possible is the opposite of impossible. When I say possible, I may as well be saying "not impossible".

Is there anything that is impossible? How do you know? The dictionary is your authority on this. Is The Totality subordinate to the dictionary? Apparently in your metaphysical world it is.

As it stands, since my perception of the world is more immediate and concrete even than my perception of the computer screen in front of me, and my computer screen is concrete, the word "abstract" is inaccurate.

Wonderful proof! :rolleyes: You cannot perceive this world as an ontological fantasy, you are only part of it.

A clue to the clueless: David speaks of nothing but metaphysics. There is no other philosophic topic that seems to interest him. He has an itch about academia that prevents him from using some of their terms, no matter how accurate.

He may be confused. I did agree with you on this awhile ago but: "I don't really engage in metaphysics myself, although it sometimes might seem like I do." - Thread 3/4 of the way down.

Is it possible that there are worlds that you cannot conceive of or that cannot be pinned down by the english definitions, or not?

Two part question that avoids the content of my statement. It is remarkable that you claim I'm being misleading.

To clear up the content of my own statement:
1) It is not possible that there is a world that does not fit into the category "all possible worlds".
2) It is not possible that there is a world that is not defined such that it fits into the category "all possible worlds".

To address your new inquiry:
1) It is not possible for there to be a world that does not obey the laws of logic.
2) Any world that obeys the laws of logic can be comprehended.
3) Therefore, it is not possible that there is a world that cannot be comprehended.

To address your second new inquiry:
1) Any logical thought can be formed into clear and precise English sentences.
2) All worlds can be comprehended (through logical thoughts).
3) Therefore, the thoughts that are used to comprehend any world can be formed into clear and precise English sentences.

Is there anything that is impossible?

Yes. It is impossible for something to both be, and not be. It is impossible for reality to be nothing whatsoever. It is impossible for something to exist and not be related causally to other things.

You cannot perceive this world as an ontological fantasy, you are only part of it.

Could you restate this sentence? You are starting to lose coherence.

He may be confused. I did agree with you on this awhile ago but: "I don't really engage in metaphysics myself, although it sometimes might seem like I do."

I would ask him to qualify that statement; perhaps he means that he has already concluded his metaphysical survey of the world and no longer actively thinks about such topics. It could simply be an unavoidable side-effect of his years of philosophy that he cannot avoid speaking truths about reality.

"It depends on what the meaning of is, is." would not have worked in Tocharian. Their verbs have cases that dont exist in English. Of all the languages ever found, it looks closest to the original Proto-Indo-European and the Aryan Vedas. The conjugation of Tocharian verbs include various degrees of ambiguity, and it is always clear whether the actor was singular or plural, male, female, both, and even whether sentient or not.

And yet so much of the Vedas is allegorical. Its arguable that their entire concept of reality is allegorical, and there "is not now, nor never was, nor never would be" an absolute literal truth. I put that in quotes because they had a single word for the verb form that says all that. What takes English 10 words, they used one.

In the Bagavad Gita, Arjuna comes to understand that the hundreds of lines describing the coming great battle is just an illusion, a 3D video game with the struggle between his principles and his relationships. Which is the absolute truth? The war elephants he sees in front of him, or the enlightenment in his own mind?

One reason Tocharian has 120 letters in the alphabet is so that they can transcribe, and pronounce properly- Hindu Sanskrit, Tibetan Bon, Chinese Confucian and Taoist, and Persian Zoroastrian texts, and borrow whatever words they find useful, just as English does now. They were either Aryans who understood the Orient, or likewise, Avatars who left texts about Avatars for us to ponder over on the sets of our own 3D Matrixes.

And if you tell them this, they will smile like the Bodhisattavahs they are.

Trevor,

NM: Is it possible that there are worlds that you cannot conceive of or that cannot be pinned down by the english definitions, or not?

TS: Two part question that avoids the content of my statement. It is remarkable that you claim I'm being misleading.

To clear up the content of my own statement:
1) It is not possible that there is a world that does not fit into the category "all possible worlds".
2) It is not possible that there is a world that is not defined such that it fits into the category "all possible worlds".

You haven't defined world yet. How might you define world? By looking at ours I suppose since there is no other that you can look at. And you can only see ours from the inside because you are part of it, thus you are not in a position to fully understand it. In fact, the idea of the whole world of which you are only part is itself an abstract concept because we cannot directly observe this, we can only observe what we take as parts of it.

Once you define world you plan on applying this definition to the abstraction "all possible worlds". The possibilities here are determined solely by your definition of world. So your definition of world is formed from looking out from one world. And then you have the arrogance to state that your analysis of one case, and only from the inside, can provide the basis of "all possible cases".

So you have created this metaphysical framework here. You have defined world and picked your set of "all possible worlds". What does it all mean? Nothing really. It does not mean that any real world must conform to your ideas. In fact, due to the fact that your ideas are simply part of one world, it is highly unlikely that even your own world conforms to your definition.... We can be relatively certain that your observations conform to your definition as, after all, your definition/theory was created for the sole purpose of modeling what you observed.

However, in the end, the only worlds that necessarily conform to your rules are the ones that you create -- in your head! You are God over these worlds. Congrats. Unfortunately, back in reality, you appear to be simply a complex of organic matter, not a God.

To address your new inquiry:
1) It is not possible for there to be a world that does not obey the laws of logic.
2) Any world that obeys the laws of logic can be comprehended.
3) Therefore, it is not possible that there is a world that cannot be comprehended.

1) Can you prove this? Can you do so without begging the question?
2) Can you prove this? It sounds like you are taking a detached or transcendent position here which simply isn't true unless you are talking about the worlds that you created once again.

Neil,

You haven't defined world yet.

At this point in the discussion, it does not matter. You were calling the phrase meaningless, when world is merely an ontological category -- like any other ontological category. This is the first time you have asked for a definition without presuming to already know it.

I'll dignify what I see as less stubborness and more reasoning with an answer:

The world, in Wittgenstein's vocabulary (and I have made it clear that I am using Wittgenstein's vocab.), refers to every fact that is the case. The sum total of every possible fact that could be the case is "all possible worlds".

1) Can you prove this? Can you do so without begging the question?

It's true by definition. Circularity does not make a statement false; fallacies do not identify certain falsehoods, but potential irrelevancies. In this case, the definition is necessary (as are most carefully considered definitions), so it is not a fallacy in the first place. I'm merely pointing out that were it the fallacy you are claiming it to be, that would not make it incorrect.

Besides, trying to apply the logic of a fallacy's definition to my argument assumes that you already believe that logic always works.

2) Can you prove this? It sounds like you are taking a detached or transcendent position here which simply isn't true unless you are talking about the worlds that you created once again.

I don't need to prove it twice. In fact, I don't need to prove it at all, since it is true by definition. If it does not appear to be true, you need to look at the definitions of all the words involved.

However, in the end, the only worlds that necessarily conform to your rules are the ones that you create -- in your head! You are God over these worlds. Congrats. Unfortunately, back in reality, you appear to be simply a complex of organic matter, not a God.

You contradict yourself from sentence to sentence. You make a metaphysical statement (yes, epistemology is a branch of metaphysics) when you make the agnostic claim that a person cannot have any knowledge of reality -- that is to say, no ontological knowledge. Then you turn around and make a claim about reality, that I am one state of being (matter), and not another (God) -- which is ontological!

You need to be more consistent, and the only way to do this is by getting rid of your lazy agnosticism. Only by recognizing that a person can have accurate knowledge of reality can you make any of these claims. Are you ready to stop living in denial?

In summation:

The statement "back in reality, you appear to be simply a complex of organic matter, not a God" is a metaphysical statement if I ever saw one. Are you willing to recognize this?

Trevor,

The world, in Wittgenstein's vocabulary (and I have made it clear that I am using Wittgenstein's vocab.), refers to every fact that is the case. The sum total of every possible fact that could be the case is "all possible worlds".

What at bottom is a fact? Everything comes from subjective perceptions. There are no real "facts", only theories and models.

NM: 1) Can you prove this? Can you do so without begging the question?

TS: It's true by definition.

We are right back at the english dictionary being the laws of the universe.

If it does not appear to be true, you need to look at the definitions of all the words involved.

Does Nature look at the english dictionary when it forms "worlds"? I doubt it!

In summation:

The statement "back in reality, you appear to be simply a complex of organic matter, not a God" is a metaphysical statement if I ever saw one. Are you willing to recognize this?

Tons of stuff is metaphysical. I just deny that it has any meaning. I can engage in metaphysics if I like... you are the one bound by the dictionary.

Neil,

What at bottom is a fact?

A proposition that is true. Sometimes a fact is defined to be a proposition that can be true (a fact can, under this definition, also be false). Depending on the context, I use either.

Everything comes from subjective perceptions. There are no real "facts", only theories and models.

These are two examples of facts. They can be true, or they can be false. Since the second fact cannot be true without contradiction (ie. it must be a fact), it is false. I know for a fact that there are real facts. And that statement itself is a real fact.

We are right back at the english dictionary being the laws of the universe.

Stop misrepresenting my position.

Within the construct of any language, a contradiction is always and necessarily false. Therefore, something that would contradict itself if it were a contradiction is always and necessarily true.

Does Nature look at the english dictionary when it forms "worlds"?

Stop asking what Nature should do: you should, and there is no excuse when you don't. You have an obligation to know the definitions of all words involved before you open your mouth and reply. Nature does not need to look at the dictionary, but human beings do. When you do not know the definitions of the words involved, you make hideous blunders.

I just deny that it has any meaning.

Then when you said "in reality, you appear to be simply a complex of organic matter, not a God", you deny that you said anything whatsoever. Why did you say it then? Were you babbling? Were you trying to mislead me?

I can engage in metaphysics if I like... you are the one bound by the dictionary.

What the fuck? This is hypocricy. "I can do this, but you can't!"

You know what? I engage in metaphysics successfully, and you engage in it unsuccessfully. That is the only difference. Your metaphysical view of the world contains "Gods", "matter", but not "worlds". As such is the case, you quite literally cannot understand that last sentence. Your mind simply does not contain every concept necessary to the understanding of that sentence.

5 more sentences that don't make sense to you:
1) I exist in the world.
2) There are many things in the world.
3) A proper understanding of the world is necessary to thought.
4) The world reflects Reality.
5) Scientists and philosophers study various aspects of the world.

It's quite sad, really.

Trevor,

NM: What at bottom is a fact?

TS: A proposition that is true. Sometimes a fact is defined to be a proposition that can be true (a fact can, under this definition, also be false). Depending on the context, I use either.

If an alien comes to earth and we can somehow communicate and to the aliens our sky is "black" rather than "blue", which one is the fact? You would need an objective viewpoint to declare one true and the other false. Since we have only a subjective viewpoint we cannot. We can only say what is true TO US. What is true to ME. So where are our facts? There are only highly agreed on and corroborated theories. Would you like to try to explain "all possible worlds" in another way? (Just to bring this back into context you claimed "all possible worlds" had something to do with "all possible facts")

TS: These are two examples of facts. They can be true, or they can be false. Since the second fact cannot be true without contradiction (ie. it must be a fact), it is false. I know for a fact that there are real facts. And that statement itself is a real fact.

There may well be real facts. But how do we find them? Is the english dictionary our authority on facts? Or do we mass up everyone's opinions and declare the most popular to be facts? I think it's naive to claim that what appears true to you from your perspective is absolute truth. Reasoning is just another part of your perspective. There is no such thing as objectivity.

NM: We are right back at the english dictionary being the laws of the universe.

TS: Within the construct of any language, a contradiction is always and necessarily false. Therefore, something that would contradict itself if it were a contradiction is always and necessarily true.

Do you agree that empirical observations lead to our concepts and language, a general form and model that has practical use for us? Is it not an error to assume that things outside our empirical observations must necessary conform to these concepts and language?

When you do not know the definitions of the words involved, you make hideous blunders.

Even worse ones are made when you forget that men, and not even highly intelligent ones, created and perfected our language as opposed to some absolute entity doing it.

TS: Then when you said "in reality, you appear to be simply a complex of organic matter, not a God", you deny that you said anything whatsoever. Why did you say it then? Were you babbling? Were you trying to mislead me?

I figured you would agree with that. I tentatively agree with it too. It doesn't make metaphysical sense that a part can understand the entirety. Instead metaphysicians really only theorize about some english-dictionary-world in their minds, not the "world" that we are living in and constantly perceiving.

NM: I can engage in metaphysics if I like... you are the one bound by the dictionary.

TS: What the fuck? This is hypocricy. "I can do this, but you can't!"

You have hung yourself on the dictionary, not me: I am actually trying to help you. :)

TS: You know what? I engage in metaphysics successfully, and you engage in it unsuccessfully. That is the only difference. Your metaphysical view of the world contains "Gods", "matter", but not "worlds". As such is the case, you quite literally cannot understand that last sentence. Your mind simply does not contain every concept necessary to the understanding of that sentence.

I don't believe in any "Gods", but they are a funny concept to use. As for matter, I use it for practical means. All our concepts and reasoning attach to "metaphysics" somewhere, I'm not sure where the distinction lies.

Neil,

If an alien comes to earth and we can somehow communicate and to the aliens our sky is "black" rather than "blue", which one is the fact?

To certain aliens, the sky is black. To certain humans, the sky is blue.

There may well be real facts. But how do we find them?

By discovering facts which, if they were false, would lead to contradiction.

For instance, "reality is nothing whatsoever" must always be false.

Do you agree that empirical observations lead to our concepts and language, a general form and model that has practical use for us?

There are too many parts to this question. Separate it into each unique idea.

Is it not an error to assume that things outside our empirical observations must necessary conform to these concepts and language?

Intentionally misleading question. "Do your parents know you are gay?"

It doesn't make metaphysical sense that a part can understand the entirety.

That is a metaphysical claim about all parts within the entirety. You are contradicting yourself.

You have hung yourself on the dictionary, not me: I am actually trying to help you. :)

False. You are trying to transfer blame for your own errors to me.

I don't believe in any "Gods", but they are a funny concept to use.

You aren't laughing.

All our concepts and reasoning attach to "metaphysics" somewhere, I'm not sure where the distinction lies.

Further evidence that you are not capable of helping me. Your thoughts are weaker than mine.