Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises were...

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Certainly real » Wed Sep 26, 2018 12:32 am

Ecmandu wrote:The first part of the post. No, you didn't misunderstand me...

The second part of the post is literally non computational word salad.


Which part? Where does it result in a paradox. I showed how your argument lead to a misunderstanding between two sentences. One that was meaningful and one that was absurd. All you're saying is that the second part is word salad without backing it up. I cannot respond to that.
Certainly real
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Ecmandu » Wed Sep 26, 2018 1:41 am

Certainly real wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:The first part of the post. No, you didn't misunderstand me...

The second part of the post is literally non computational word salad.


Which part? Where does it result in a paradox. I showed how your argument lead to a misunderstanding between two sentences. One that was meaningful and one that was absurd. All you're saying is that the second part is word salad without backing it up. I cannot respond to that.


One of you're issues to this regard is this:

Since omniscience is defined as a being that knows all is knowable, you argue from the definition, and not treating the definition as a proposition which is falsifiable. You say my argument is non computable because of the definition, and I say yours is non computable because of the evidence.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7261
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Ecmandu » Wed Sep 26, 2018 2:16 am

Ecmandu wrote:
Certainly real wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:The first part of the post. No, you didn't misunderstand me...

The second part of the post is literally non computational word salad.


Which part? Where does it result in a paradox. I showed how your argument lead to a misunderstanding between two sentences. One that was meaningful and one that was absurd. All you're saying is that the second part is word salad without backing it up. I cannot respond to that.


One of you're issues to this regard is this:

Since omniscience is defined as a being that knows all is knowable, you argue from the definition, and not treating the definition as a proposition which is falsifiable. You say my argument is non computable because of the definition, and I say yours is non computable because of the evidence.


I'll let you ponder this further than we've currently gone in this thread:

If god is in all beings, why are all beings not omniscient? Do you think, maybe, perhaps, (this is rhetorical) that god is not in all beings?
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7261
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Certainly real » Wed Sep 26, 2018 3:16 am

Ecmandu wrote:Since omniscience is defined as a being that knows all is knowable, you argue from the definition, and not treating the definition as a proposition which is falsifiable. You say my argument is non computable because of the definition, and I say yours is non computable because of the evidence.


I argue from reason and reason dictates that anything that is paradoxical is false. If you read my argument premise by premise, you'd see how rejecting omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience is rationally absurd.

You cannot empirically test for omnipresence/Existence. You can only empirically test for things within Existence/that which is all-existing. But you cannot reject omnipresence because reason does not allow you to. Same with omnipotence and omniscience as demonstrated by the argument.
Certainly real
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Certainly real » Wed Sep 26, 2018 4:20 am

Ecmandu wrote:I'll let you ponder this further than we've currently gone in this thread:

If god is in all beings, why are all beings not omniscient? Do you think, maybe, perhaps, (this is rhetorical) that god is not in all beings?


Some thing has to be all-existing. Right? Let's call this x.

Per the dictates of reason, x sustains/creates all beings with what it possess. This avoids the paradox of something coming from nothing.

All existing things, are sustained by x. X is what makes everything exist. We recognise that we are not omnipresent and we recognise that x is necessarily omnipresent. So in order to avoid paradoxes in explaining how we are are in Existence but not Existence itself at the same time whilst rationally accounting for x, we have only one non-paradoxical path to take. Potency/purity.

X has varying levels of potency. Let's call it's purest/most potent/highest/complete form God. Maximally potent/pure x (a.k.a God) has reach/access to all impurer levels of x. It sustains all impurer levels of x. We are perhaps a less potent form of consciousness within the most potent form of consciousness. Or a less potent form of reality within the most potent form of reality.

In conclusion, ultimately: Maximally potent/pure x sustains all impurer/less potent levels of x. And, it has reach and access to all impurer/less potent levels of x. This thereby rationally fulfils the semantics of omnipresence/omnipotence/omniscience.

What I've outlined, is paradox free. Can you give me another model of Existence that is paradox free?
Certainly real
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Ecmandu » Wed Sep 26, 2018 4:39 am

This is a bit humorous...

You see, you have one line, I have about 7.
It's painfully obvious that you are not a logistician, nor do you care about logic.

Try this one:

No single being can count, no matter how fast they count, an infinite number. It never stops.

There are an infinite amount of infinite numbers.

Now, if there are an infinite number of beings each stating one number each, an infinite amount of numbers could be stated (known) but it is not centralized, but rather, decentralized ...

You are neither a rational or logical person, so this will mean nothing to you.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7261
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Ecmandu » Wed Sep 26, 2018 5:00 am

Ecmandu wrote:This is a bit humorous...

You see, you have one line, I have about 7.
It's painfully obvious that you are not a logistician, nor do you care about logic.

Try this one:

No single being can count, no matter how fast they count, an infinite number. It never stops.

There are an infinite amount of infinite numbers.

Now, if there are an infinite number of beings each stating one number each, an infinite amount of numbers could be stated (known) but it is not centralized, but rather, decentralized ...

You are neither a rational or logical person, so this will mean nothing to you.


I'll give you another one of my lines in case you think I am bluffing.

If a being knows every reason why it does what it does, and all of those reasons are internal, then it has no capacity to detect external reasons, it has nothing to act upon. This causes logical Catatonia, which is a lack of sentience.

If a being knows every reason why it does what it does but all those reasons are external. Then it knows no reason why it does something, it causes logical Catatonia as well because it can't exist .

So, to be a conscious being, it knows incompletely, reasons internal and external.

I've been trying really hard not to get too advanced for you.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7261
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Certainly real » Wed Sep 26, 2018 7:43 am

Ecmandu wrote:This is a bit humorous...

You see, you have one line, I have about 7.
It's painfully obvious that you are not a logistician, nor do you care about logic.

Try this one:

No single being can count, no matter how fast they count, an infinite number. It never stops.

There are an infinite amount of infinite numbers.

Now, if there are an infinite number of beings each stating one number each, an infinite amount of numbers could be stated (known) but it is not centralized, but rather, decentralized ...

You are neither a rational or logical person, so this will mean nothing to you.


You ability to distinguish between what is meaningful and what is paradoxical is poor. Amongst other things, you seem to think that the following two sentence mean the same thing: I know x and I know what it's like to not know x at the same time. 2) I know x and I don't know x at the same time

Your mistake is that you produce paradoxical sentences, I point them out to you, fix them for you and then you ignore them and produce other paradoxical sentence. A logician wouldn't make sense of them simply because they are absurd. Here's one last thing I'll fix for you: Counting to infinity is absurd. Counting infinitely is possible.

Have a nice day
Certainly real
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Sep 26, 2018 11:23 am

Ecmandu wrote:You can't not know something and know the same something at the same time.


Well, first of all, I'm not God. I think we overestimate our ability to deduce. There are particles that can be in the same place at the same time. Particles can also be waves at the same time. There's the Schrödingers Cat paradox. I also think we are separate from other things AND not separate.

but then I disagree. I have known that someone was mistreating me, out of my sight, while not knowing it. When it is revealed I have realized that I knew it all along and had even taken steps to distance myself, though I didn't notice that I knew it. It is like I fell into a deeper portion of the full organism, which knew all along. And in some way, I was even aware of it while not being aware of it.

But mainly I hesitate to assume that I know what a godlike being can and cannot do.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1021
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Ecmandu » Wed Sep 26, 2018 3:24 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:You can't not know something and know the same something at the same time.


Well, first of all, I'm not God. I think we overestimate our ability to deduce. There are particles that can be in the same place at the same time. Particles can also be waves at the same time. There's the Schrödingers Cat paradox. I also think we are separate from other things AND not separate.

but then I disagree. I have known that someone was mistreating me, out of my sight, while not knowing it. When it is revealed I have realized that I knew it all along and had even taken steps to distance myself, though I didn't notice that I knew it. It is like I fell into a deeper portion of the full organism, which knew all along. And in some way, I was even aware of it while not being aware of it.

But mainly I hesitate to assume that I know what a godlike being can and cannot do.


Perhaps paradoxes are logic not solved yet.
On some level your story fits this criteria:

I know that I don't know whether you have a middle name or what it is if you do.

God never has this perception (by definition) this second part is addressed directly as a reply to certainly real about his false mathematical statement.

Infinities can be counted simultaneously by an infinite number of beings counting each digit in a line that extends infinitely into space. Not a single infinity can be counted by one being alone.

This again is proof that all the information is there, it's just impossible forone being to do it.

In fact it's proof that no matter what type of being you are, there's an infinite amount that you don't know.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7261
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Certainly real » Thu Sep 27, 2018 12:27 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:You can't not know something and know the same something at the same time.


Well, first of all, I'm not God. I think we overestimate our ability to deduce. There are particles that can be in the same place at the same time. Particles can also be waves at the same time. There's the Schrödingers Cat paradox. I also think we are separate from other things AND not separate.

but then I disagree. I have known that someone was mistreating me, out of my sight, while not knowing it. When it is revealed I have realized that I knew it all along and had even taken steps to distance myself, though I didn't notice that I knew it. It is like I fell into a deeper portion of the full organism, which knew all along. And in some way, I was even aware of it while not being aware of it.

But mainly I hesitate to assume that I know what a godlike being can and cannot do.


Any field of study that claims that it has observed a paradox, is using language wrongly. You can never understand a paradox let alone observe one.
Certainly real
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Ecmandu » Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:05 am

Certainly real wrote:
Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:You can't not know something and know the same something at the same time.


Well, first of all, I'm not God. I think we overestimate our ability to deduce. There are particles that can be in the same place at the same time. Particles can also be waves at the same time. There's the Schrödingers Cat paradox. I also think we are separate from other things AND not separate.

but then I disagree. I have known that someone was mistreating me, out of my sight, while not knowing it. When it is revealed I have realized that I knew it all along and had even taken steps to distance myself, though I didn't notice that I knew it. It is like I fell into a deeper portion of the full organism, which knew all along. And in some way, I was even aware of it while not being aware of it.

But mainly I hesitate to assume that I know what a godlike being can and cannot do.


Any field of study that claims that it has observed a paradox, is using language wrongly. You can never understand a paradox let alone observe one.


You've never presented ONE paradox in this thread, not ONE!! Stop acting like you know what the word means!!!

Let's have fun now.

If god is in all of us, how come we are all not omniscient?

If god is omnipresent, and we sin, then that means a perfect beings sins all the time ...

How about once you catch up with my 5 arguments here we move to the harder ones...

But I know you can't ... so it's a moot point ...
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7261
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby surreptitious75 » Thu Sep 27, 2018 2:18 am


God is a philosophical being not an empirical one

The characteristics he has do not exist in reality

So to say that God is in human beings or vice versa is to falsely conflate the philosophical with the empirical

The confusion over omniscience is resolved when the two are separated and kept separate as they should be
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
 
Posts: 471
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby surreptitious75 » Thu Sep 27, 2018 2:26 am

Ecmandu wrote:
Perhaps paradoxes are logic not yet solved

True paradoxes cannot exist for they would invalidate logic which is the foundation of mathematics
Were logic invalidated then contradictory truth statements would have equal epistemological value
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
 
Posts: 471
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Certainly real » Thu Sep 27, 2018 7:08 am

Ecmandu wrote:You've never presented ONE paradox in this thread, not ONE!! Stop acting like you know what the word means!!!

I doubt the sincerity of this comment.
Let's have fun now.

Let's uphold reason.
If god is in all of us, how come we are all not omniscient?

Given that you now seem to be trying, I'll repeat myself again.
Because we are not all omnipresent/Existence and you cannot be omniscient if you don't have access to all things/omnipresence

Once again: We are existing in Existence/God, but we are not Existence/God.
Us being in Existence/God or
Existence/God being in us is not the same as:
Us being Existence/God
Non-existence being in us is paradoxical. So is:
Us being Existence or:
Existence being us. Which just leaves:
We are in Existence/Existence is in us

The rest of your argument doesn't follow because it assumes that the following statement is rational: We are all God/Existence. As demonstrated above, this statement is paradoxical and therefore not rational.

If god is omnipresent, and we sin, then that means a perfect beings sins all the time ...

The rest of your argument doesn't follow because it assumes that the following statement is rational: We are all God/Existence. As demonstrated above, this statement is paradoxical and therefore not rational. Again to demonstrate the same paradox using different words: If we change/sin in Existence, this is not the same as Existence changing/sinning. It would be absurd for Existence to ever change. Things in Existence change, but Existence itself never changes.
How about once you catch up with my 5 arguments here we move to the harder ones...

First give me a basic argument that doesn't contain a paradox in its first premise, then try giving me harder ones.
But I know you can't ... so it's a moot point ...

If that is the case, then why bother?
Certainly real
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Certainly real » Thu Sep 27, 2018 8:19 am

surreptitious75 wrote:
God is a philosophical being not an empirical one

Empirical is everything that we experience or observe in this reality which is in Existence. But Existence and our understanding of it is not limited to our sensory experiences/observations. That would be absurd.
The characteristics he has do not exist in reality

The characteristics are not limited to our reality as that would be absurd. You cannot have omnipresence/Existence limited to a finite reality. You'd have to deal with the paradox of something coming from nothing and reason dictates that we can never ignore paradoxes.

As you correctly highlighted, Existence and reality are not the same thing. That would be paradoxical (no need to demonstrate, as we agree on this point)

Reason and language clearly dictate 4 categories to all things: The necessary, the potential, the absurd, the unknown. Agreed?

Existence being infinite (necessary), means it has the potential to generate all hypothetical possibilities (potentials)
See how this is paradox free? Now if you consider any alternative to this, I guarantee you absurdity. Try it.

Reason dictates that Existence is not beyond what can be sensed. It is beyond/more than what we can sense but reason dictates that sensing something and understanding something are two different things. We understand that Existence may have aspects that we are unaware of (this is not paradoxical). For example Q: Reason tells us that we don't know if Existence has the potential to generate/sustain a being with a 100 senses, but we know it can generate/sustain unicorns. Q is not something that we sense, it is something that we understand. Agreed?

We understand that there is Existence, because non-existence is absurd. We understand that Existence is infinite, because Existence being finite/us/our reality is absurd. So reason clearly dictates and demonstrates that we understand Existence is infinite (therefore, beyond/greater than our senses, as we are not infinite/Existence) Do you see the circle of truth?

We can empirically observe that which is in our reality (the stuff we sense) we can theorise and describe these observations so long asthey never ever amount to paradoxes like a particle going in an out of Existence. Going into another dimension or reality is fine, but we certainly cannot say going into non-existence (absurd). Right?

Reason dictates that we can never ignore or believe in anything paradoxical. It dictates that we acknowledge that which has meaning (is rational) appropriately (By distinguishing that which is necessary from that which is potential/hypothetically possible) and to not apply it to that which we have no knowledge of/Is entirely unknown (we can't rationally investigate or talk about or theorise about beings that have a 100 senses)
Certainly real
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:01 pm

Certainly real wrote:
Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:You can't not know something and know the same something at the same time.


Well, first of all, I'm not God. I think we overestimate our ability to deduce. There are particles that can be in the same place at the same time. Particles can also be waves at the same time. There's the Schrödingers Cat paradox. I also think we are separate from other things AND not separate.

but then I disagree. I have known that someone was mistreating me, out of my sight, while not knowing it. When it is revealed I have realized that I knew it all along and had even taken steps to distance myself, though I didn't notice that I knew it. It is like I fell into a deeper portion of the full organism, which knew all along. And in some way, I was even aware of it while not being aware of it.

But mainly I hesitate to assume that I know what a godlike being can and cannot do.


Any field of study that claims that it has observed a paradox, is using language wrongly. You can never understand a paradox let alone observe one.
I think that's a fair statement, but it does not contradict what I said. From a limited perspective, which we always have, we judge that, for example, something cannot both be a wave and a particle at the same time. However once we get evidence that this is the case, we realize that our conceptions - whether linguistic or metaphysical or both - made something seem like a paradox when it wasn't.

Right now we do not know what other phenomena would seem paradoxical if true/possible, may not be.

I think there is hubris in metaphysical deduction, given that we have limited knowledge.

So to go back to your original response: When scientists observe what they would have considered a paradox, they need to look at the assumptions built into previous language and ontology that made it seem like what is now observed could not be.

We do not know what we can rule out, using deduction because our language and our ontology may have incorrect assumptions.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1021
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Ecmandu » Thu Sep 27, 2018 3:27 pm

Certainly real,

Then you're just stating that nothing INSIDE!!! God sins because god is perfect. You're stating that no matter what we do, we can't possibly sin. Otherwise god isn't perfect. If you think we being inside of god can sin, then perfect beings have sin IN them.

You're also playing games with words that contradict their meaning, omnipresence means being everywhere, that means everywhere would be omniscient. Your inside/outside distinction contradicts the definition of the terms you are presumably trying to demonstrate
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7261
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Certainly real » Thu Sep 27, 2018 7:59 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:Right now we do not know what other phenomena would seem paradoxical if true/possible, may not be.

I agree but we can rule some things out. For example we can rule out the possibility of something going into non-existence. Can we not?
From a limited perspective, which we always have, we judge that, for example, something cannot both be a wave and a particle at the same time. However once we get evidence that this is the case

Scientists will never conclude that something can be two different things at the same time as that has no meaning. They will either conclude: The observation is faulty or that it is incomplete. Our planet is a good analogy for this:

The earth being round was considered paradoxical at one point because it appeared to amount to something being straight and round at the same time (which is absurd). Long story short, we can make faulty or incomplete observations (it would be hubris to deny this) but we cannot deny that which is necessarily paradoxical: For example something coming from nothing or existence bordering non-existence or something being two different things at the same time (it would be misguided/irrational to deny this) It is these necessaries that yield the knowledge that Existence is necessarily infinite and eternal.

Do we agree on the difference between the absurd and the unknown?
Certainly real
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Certainly real » Thu Sep 27, 2018 8:20 pm

Ecmandu wrote:You're also playing games with words that contradict their meaning,

You're accusing me of word games. We're both using words that label meaningful things/language to communicate. If we use language irrationally/incorrectly then we're gonna get paradoxes/meaninglessness. The whole point of rational discourse is to avoid paradoxes.

Then you're just stating that nothing INSIDE!!! God sins because god is perfect. You're stating that no matter what we do, we can't possibly sin. Otherwise god isn't perfect. If you think we being inside of god can sin, then perfect beings have sin IN them.

You keep making the same mistake because you keep failing to directly address or pay sufficient attention to the following:
That which is omnipresent/omniscient is everywhere. Are we everywhere? Are we omnipresent?
We are within that which is omnipresent. Do you not see the difference?

omnipresence means being everywhere, that means everywhere would be omniscient

Yes, I agree. It literally means being everywhere is being omniscient. We are not being everywhere are we? So we are not omnipresent nor are we omniscient. We're just in it. There is a clear difference in semantics/meaning.

Again: We are in Existence is not the same as We are Existence. We clearly recognise that we are not Existence. We are just existing in Existence.
Certainly real
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Ecmandu » Thu Sep 27, 2018 8:57 pm

Actually, if omnipresence is everywhere, then by definition, we should be omnipresent as well, because it's in EVERY aspect of us, not just some.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7261
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Fri Sep 28, 2018 1:12 am

Certainly real wrote:I agree but we can rule some things out. For example we can rule out the possibility of something going into non-existence. Can we not?
It seems like some things no longer exist. But perhaps that is not what you mean. I would likely hesitate to be certain about the answer to that question.

Scientists will never conclude that something can be two different things at the same time as that has no meaning. They will either conclude: The observation is faulty or that it is incomplete. Our planet is a good analogy for this:
But wave particle duality is like that. Now we know that this is a way of being. So, it is one thing with the qualities of things we considered not possible in one thing at one moment in time. So now it is possible and things are no longer what we thought they were.

From our current perspective, things we think we can rule out deductively, may in fact later turn out to be possible, because of deficiencies in our models, ontologies, language and intution.

I am not arguing that what is self-contradictory is the case. I am arguing that what seems self-contradictory, may turn out not to be.

The earth being round was considered paradoxical at one point because it appeared to amount to something being straight and round at the same time (which is absurd). Long story short, we can make faulty or incomplete observations (it would be hubris to deny this) but we cannot deny that which is necessarily paradoxical: For example something coming from nothing or existence bordering non-existence or something being two different things at the same time (it would be misguided/irrational to deny this) It is these necessaries that yield the knowledge that Existence is necessarily infinite and eternal.
I don't know if these things that seem paradoxical will turn out to be not so, given assumptions in them.

Do we agree on the difference between the absurd and the unknown?
I think it is hubris to think you can readily place things in each box with certainty.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1021
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Certainly real » Fri Sep 28, 2018 5:55 am

Ecmandu wrote:Actually, if omnipresence is everywhere, then by definition, we should be omnipresent as well, because it's in EVERY aspect of us, not just some.


Let's say energy is omnipresent. We're made up of energy. That makes us a part of energy/the omnipresent. It doesn't make us omnipresent does it? It's in every aspect of us but we're not in every aspect of it are we?

You're made up of energy and so am I. Energy is in every aspect of both of us. We're not in every aspect of energy. We're just a part of it. We're not the whole of it.
Certainly real
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Certainly real » Fri Sep 28, 2018 6:25 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:It seems like some things no longer exist. But perhaps that is not what you mean. I would likely hesitate to be certain about the answer to that question.


Give me one example.

But wave particle duality is like that. Now we know that this is a way of being. So, it is one thing with the qualities of things we considered not possible in one thing at one moment in time. So now it is possible and things are no longer what we thought they were.


It isn't. If you put the observation in premise by premise format you'll see that it doesn't amount to a paradox.

I don't know if these things that seem paradoxical will turn out to be not so, given assumptions in them.

Scepticism and doubt need to be rational. You cannot say, right now it feels like we can't doubt reason, but one day we might discover that we can. We never doubt paradoxes as being paradoxes. Once something amounts to a paradox, we know we've gone wrong somewhere, we don't think, ah the paradox is real. We can never accept something going into non-existence as non-existence is paradoxical. Existence being finite is paradoxical. These things have never changed and will never change with regards to them being paradoxes.

Again, we simply make observations that may appear to amount to a paradox but that is either a fault in the observation or an incomplete observation. No rational person will tell you anything different.

I think it is hubris to think you can readily place things in each box with certainty.


I think it's irrational/paradoxical do doubt reason. I think it's irrational to think that paradoxes will ever become non-paradoxical. We've never had such an example and we never will.
Certainly real
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Fri Sep 28, 2018 10:15 am

Certainly real wrote:
Karpel Tunnel wrote:It seems like some things no longer exist. But perhaps that is not what you mean. I would likely hesitate to be certain about the answer to that question.


Give me one example.
People's consciousness at death. The uniformity of the singularity that big banged. A universe without conscousness in it. The light emanating from a particular star. A particular pattern on the surface of water.

It isn't. If you put the observation in premise by premise format you'll see that it doesn't amount to a paradox.
Sigh. Again. It seemed like something that would be a paradox before. I am talking about making claims that X is not possible because it would be a paradox. Later we may find that X is possible, so we realize we were wrong about things. You think you can deduce what is not possible. But YOU like the consensus of scientists before QM did, may have faulty assumptions that make Y or Z seem like paradoxes.

Scepticism and doubt need to be rational. You cannot say, right now it feels like we can't doubt reason, but one day we might discover that we can. We never doubt paradoxes as being paradoxes. Once something amounts to a paradox, we know we've gone wrong somewhere, we don't think, ah the paradox is real.

That is after the fact, when we realize that what seemed like it would be a paradox and hence no possible is clearly real. I am talking about WHERE WE ARE NOW with our LIMITED KNOWLEDGE and we do not know what we think cannot possibly be true, may very well be.

We can never accept something going into non-existence as non-existence is paradoxical.
I would word it as something no longer exists.
Existence being finite is paradoxical. These things have never changed and will never change with regards to them being paradoxes.
Well, demonstrate that in some final way for the physicists and cosmologists, because that will narrow down what they will consider possible.

Again, we simply make observations that may appear to amount to a paradox but that is either a fault in the observation or an incomplete observation. No rational person will tell you anything different.
Same issue as earlier in the post.
I think it's irrational/paradoxical do doubt reason. I think it's irrational to think that paradoxes will ever become non-paradoxical. We've never had such an example and we never will.
We have had examples where the consensus of rational people, generally the best at reasoning, were sure that something is a paradox and so could not exist. When it turned out to exist, they reevaluated, being reasoners. You however seem to think you could not possibly be in error or have any false assumptions that make it possible for you to make deductive errors.

Despite my making it clear what I meant about paradoxes, you continue to not place things in the context of limited knowledge that people have coupled with the possibility that they are making assumptions that are not the case. But you know that you, unlike experts in all sorts of fields will never find that you have faulty ontological assumptions that are affecting your deductive conclusions. You have final and infallible reason. Great.

I think I will restrict my communication to people who 1) actually respond to what I write and 2) who are open to revision, that they might revise something or find they have made faulty assumptions in the future. That they consider this possible.

That leads to a discussion and not just being told over and over that X is the case, as if this is an argument, or being implicitly insulted by being told any rational person would disagree with me.

I don't need an ontological guru.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1021
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users