Another ontological argument

Discussions on the nature of being, existence, reality and knowledge. What is? How do we know?

Re: Another ontological argument

Postby Dave_Oblad on December 20th, 2016, 4:32 am 

Hi DragonFly,

Tell me about it..lol. I beat myself up for a long time over that. My final hypothesis eliminates the per-requirement of Time, Space and Energy.

We Exist within the Solution of an Equation.

Again: PI = 3.1415....
We didn't create that value.
The value has sequence (Time).
The value has a beginning (3).
The sequence may be endless.
The sequence has change.
The whole is a constant.
Take these principles and apply them to a Cellular Automaton and we get interactive progressions.

If a Cellular Automation Equation, after growth and complexity, contains self aware life forms (or a God), then do those life forms Exist.. if their Existence is only within that solution?
(I'm sure they think they Exist...lol)

Regards,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3230
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: Another ontological argument

Postby Scruffy Nerf Herder on December 20th, 2016, 4:49 am 

mitchellmckain » December 15th, 2016, 12:48 pm wrote:This sentiment is clearly mutual. You see accusations in my words and make this your justifications for liberal and explicit accusations of your own, and thus communication has ended.


Which is frustrating, as I can see great potential in our discussions moving on, and I may have shot myself in the foot here pissing away a good opportunity.

mitchellmckain » December 15th, 2016, 12:48 pm wrote:Just as an example, I will repeat myself in this. It doesn't matter what particular statements you see as conclusions or premises. The point is that I reject your premises.


Okay. I've understood that much for some time. It's the shape of your rejection, the total content of your reasons for rejecting them, that has eluded me.

mitchellmckain » December 15th, 2016, 12:48 pm wrote:You see those claims as justified and most of the people here do not. This includes myself even though I agree with your ultimate conclusions. You seem to have enormous faith in these premises and I do not. I put my faith elsewhere in what I think is much more solid ground.


While I may seem to have enormous faith in them I really don't. They involve arguable propositions of their own. I do enjoy thinking about those premises and debating with myself and others over them.

It's not unusual or unexpected for people in a philosophy forum to disagree with one or more of an argument's premises, rather that's what one should hope for if they have much breadth of experience in philosophy. If you'll pardon me sounding like a broken record by now, a mason can't make do without sediment.

mitchellmckain » December 15th, 2016, 12:48 pm wrote:Forgive my presumption. I will not broach the topic again. Indeed as I have explained I no longer see any reason to presume commonality on such grounds anyway.


It is peculiar to me that somehow you don't think we have much in common when surely we both can pray this fervently:

Memento, tuum esse hodie: Deum glorificare, Iesum imitari.

Isn't that everything?
User avatar
Scruffy Nerf Herder
Member
 
Posts: 71
Joined: 29 Nov 2016


Re: Another ontological argument

Postby Scruffy Nerf Herder on December 20th, 2016, 5:02 am 

Positor » December 7th, 2016, 5:26 pm wrote:I think this is enough to establish that Being (of some kind) exists. I mean "Being exists" in the non-tautological sense (i.e. I mean "there is Being" rather than "Being is Being").


Which is precisely what I was trying to argue there, thank you friend.

Positor » December 7th, 2016, 5:26 pm wrote:An Experiencer (and therefore also Experience) exists.
Therefore something exists.
Therefore there is Existence (i.e. Being).
Therefore Being exists.


Exactly.

Positor » December 7th, 2016, 5:26 pm wrote:There are different things in Experience. For example, there may simultaneously be a black area and a white area.
Therefore Experience is heterogeneous.
Therefore Being (as instantiated by Experience) is heterogeneous.
Therefore there is more than one thing.


Hard to argue for ontologically, I would contend. How can heterogeneity be considered a general feature of experience when any particular experience is suspect? Of course I'm no monist so naturally I'm in favor of this line of argument, but it's worth testing, especially because it may not even be properly ontological, i.e. an argument from truly general features of reality that can be predicated on first principles.

Positor » December 7th, 2016, 5:26 pm wrote:None of the above, of course, proves anything about physical being, or a world outside of Experience. Any claims about causation, infinite regress, change and suchlike cannot be logically deduced.


Neither does anything in the OP imply physical being.

Positor » December 7th, 2016, 5:26 pm wrote:Regarding Dave Oblad's claim of a mathematical foundation: mathematics is logically something, albeit nothing physical. Anything that has properties is logically something. And in Dave's theory, mathematics has at least two properties: (a) that of being thought and written about, and (b) that of bringing our universe into existence.


His claim begs the question if the premises of math can't be demonstrated as sound, and the propensity of language to do what logic is ideally supposed to do is suspect. This much I've argued on page 5 here.
User avatar
Scruffy Nerf Herder
Member
 
Posts: 71
Joined: 29 Nov 2016


Re: Another ontological argument

Postby Dave_Oblad on December 20th, 2016, 5:17 am 

Hi Scruffy,

Not all forms of Math/Logic can be defined as being "unsound". Cellular Automatons are completely sound by definition.

100 years ago, we didn't know the Billion(th) digit of PI.
Today, we know that value.
Did we invent that digit or has it always been that value.
If an Equation can define a Sequential value that pre-exists everything and those same principles are applied to a more complex Equation (cellular automaton) and deep within such a solution we find "You" existing in the same way as the Billion(th) digit of PI, then wouldn't we define your Existence as being just as valid?

Regards,
Dave :^)
Last edited by Dave_Oblad on December 20th, 2016, 5:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3230
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: Another ontological argument

Postby Scruffy Nerf Herder on December 20th, 2016, 5:20 am 

Dave_Oblad » December 20th, 2016, 2:17 am wrote:Hi Scruffy,

100 years ago, we didn't know the Billion(th) digit of PI.
Today, we know that value.
Did we invent that digit or has it always been that value.
If an Equation can define a Sequential value that pre-exists everything and those same principles are applied to a more complex Equation (cellular automaton) and deep within such a solution we find "You" existing in the same way as the Billion(th) digit of PI, then wouldn't we define your Existence as being just as valid?

Regards,
Dave :^)


Okay, here's a counter:

100 years ago, it wasn't a thought in our minds. Now it is. PI may be the answer to a problem that reality doesn't even ask, anyways.
User avatar
Scruffy Nerf Herder
Member
 
Posts: 71
Joined: 29 Nov 2016


Re: Another ontological argument

Postby Dave_Oblad on December 20th, 2016, 5:25 am 

Hi again,

Scruffy wrote:PI may be the answer to a problem that reality doesn't even ask

Huh?

PI would exist.. even in Universes without Circles.

Regards,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3230
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: Another ontological argument

Postby Scruffy Nerf Herder on December 20th, 2016, 5:33 am 

Dave_Oblad » December 20th, 2016, 2:25 am wrote:Hi again,

Scruffy wrote:PI may be the answer to a problem that reality doesn't even ask

Huh?

PI would exist.. even in Universes without Circles.

Regards,
Dave :^)


Can it be demonstrated that our universe has circles or triangles? What is math ultimately predicated on? Are those premises sound? Question begging, my friend, petitio principii.
User avatar
Scruffy Nerf Herder
Member
 
Posts: 71
Joined: 29 Nov 2016


Re: Another ontological argument

Postby Dave_Oblad on December 20th, 2016, 5:49 am 

Hi Scruffy,

Scruffy wrote:Can it be demonstrated that our universe has circles or triangles?

Proof.jpg
Image of Triangle and Circle (color optional)

Is this sufficient proof or do you need more?

I accept the Existence of a Tesseract, even though we can't see one in our Universe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesseract

Regards,
Dave :^)

Ps. Going to bed.. later my friend.
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3230
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: Another ontological argument

Postby mitchellmckain on December 20th, 2016, 4:24 pm 

Scruffy Nerf Herder » December 20th, 2016, 3:49 am wrote:
mitchellmckain » December 15th, 2016, 12:48 pm wrote:Just as an example, I will repeat myself in this. It doesn't matter what particular statements you see as conclusions or premises. The point is that I reject your premises.


Okay. I've understood that much for some time. It's the shape of your rejection, the total content of your reasons for rejecting them, that has eluded me.

Have you re-read the thread lately. I raised my objections in my first post. The fact that you can think of objections to objections to objections ad infinitum shouldn't be such an obstacle to your understanding of another person's position.

Scruffy Nerf Herder » December 20th, 2016, 3:49 am wrote:
mitchellmckain » December 15th, 2016, 12:48 pm wrote:Forgive my presumption. I will not broach the topic again. Indeed as I have explained I no longer see any reason to presume commonality on such grounds anyway.


It is peculiar to me that somehow you don't think we have much in common when surely we both can pray this fervently:

Memento, tuum esse hodie: Deum glorificare, Iesum imitari.

Isn't that everything?

Uh... wow... good example of both similarities and differences at the same time. I don't know much Latin and certainly had to look this up. I have no recognition for where this even came from despite my university and seminary education. So... it would perhaps be premature to claim that I can pray in such a way. But... glory to God and immitation of Christ? Sure, with qualifications...

All glory to God, period? No. People should be praised for their accomplishments, for I am not going to get behind this bad habit of giving all credit for good things to God and all blame for bad things to man. But with regards to salvation -- DEFINITELY! I see no cause for credit being given to anyone but God for the spiritual salvation of human beings.

Is the life of Christ the absolute and unvariable blueprint for how all human beings should live and be measured? No. We do not have to live in the dark ages (or ancient human culture) in order to be righteous. But the life of Christ can be taken as an example a perfect human life to the degree where we can ask ourselves what would Jesus do in a particular situation in order to give ourselves some intuition about what is right. But this is just a useful rule of thumb and not a replacement for sound reasoning and evidence which shows why some things are demonstrably bad for people and other things have no demonstrable harm in them.

... You should examine the difference between what I said and your summary of it, i.e. between "no longer see any reason to presume commonality" and "don't think we have much in common." I would guess we have much in common but I now see reason to be more cautious about presuming what those commonalities are exactly.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Active Member
 
Posts: 1313
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: Another ontological argument

Postby ronjanec on December 20th, 2016, 9:39 pm 

Scruffy Nerf Herder » Tue Dec 20, 2016 3:33 am wrote:
Dave_Oblad » December 20th, 2016, 2:25 am wrote:Hi again,

Scruffy wrote:PI may be the answer to a problem that reality doesn't even ask

Huh?

PI would exist.. even in Universes without Circles.

Regards,
Dave :^)


Can it be demonstrated that our universe has circles or triangles? What is math ultimately predicated on? Are those premises sound? Question begging, my friend, petitio principii.


There are of course man made "circles" and "triangles" existing in the universe as Dave mentioned here on earth, but I have never seen any evidence for a naturally occurring independent/stand alone "triangle" or "circle" existing anywhere else in the universe.

When you look at the Sun or Moon, they both look like a "circle" appearing naturally in the universe, but you are actually looking at a sphere existing here and not a "circle"(an optical illusion). Yes, the rings of Saturn are circular in shape, but I would not define this as an (again) independent/stand alone "circle" existing somewhere naturally in the universe.

(It is possible that all the independent/stand alone "circles" or "triangles" that exist in the universe only exist here on earth, because they were (again) originally based on an optical illusion to begin with)
Last edited by ronjanec on December 20th, 2016, 9:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4413
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: Another ontological argument

Postby Don Juan on December 20th, 2016, 9:53 pm 

Scruffy Nerf Herder wrote:My argument has three stages. The first stage establishes the principles of reasoning behind the rest of the argument. The second stage simply defines God by necessary inference from the principles. The third stage summarizes the argument in eight statements, which make explicitly clear the logic behind the whole argument.

A) Being is. That is, something exists. This is the principle of existence....
B) Being is being. This is the principle of identity. Being is identical to being. A thing is identical to itself.....
C) Being is not non-being. This is the principle of non-contradiction....
D) Either being or non-being. This is the principle of excluded middle....
E) Non-being cannot produce being. This is the principle of causality....
F) Being causes being similar to itself. This is the principle of analogy....


One of the points that can be observed here and in relation to the bits of comments I put forward above is the need to recognize how observers basically get facts and how they infer from these facts, and what is the extent, breadth, details and structure of these facts and inferences as analyzed and synthesized or transformed together. These considerations would put the constraint - of the observer's capacity and capability regarding knowledge and knowing. We cannot argue purely on logic when it comes to the universe without ourselves being driven unconsciously into the wonderland of our own thoughts, losing connection with reality to some degree, and convincing ourselves of the good form of the argument. If to be safe one would assert that

"'starting from what we do not or cannot know (yet, or ultimately will never be able to know because of our ultimate limitation as observers)'....something came along,"

he could proceed from these to how much more will be his assessment of God. One of the ultimate questions cannot be answered, and he would notice that the best humble position will be agnosticism. This argument is part of my position and puts a yoke to ontological arguments.

This position does not reject or affirm God - but becomes critical with 'It' and so to the concepts like 'being', 'existence', 'nothing', to name among the few.

I however is not an agnostic. The reason for this divergence is because there is, as I have mentioned, the HUGE MONSTER out there and within us biting the depths and breadths of our thoughts; we are in direct confrontation with this monster that has been there since our own existence - 'that which we do not or cannot know (yet, or ultimately will never be able to know because of our ultimate limitations as observers)'. (We could ask ourselves right now to realize and admit our own ignorance and vast unknown that may be in there beyond our comprehension). Part of this monster maybe opened within human understanding probably within millions and millions of years from now, but that ultimate part of this monster that will never be reached by the observer - I would tap on the wellspring of my faith - and I hope will be what I call God. There will be a barrier between this part and human knowing, that is, annihilation.
Don Juan
Active Member
 
Posts: 1151
Joined: 17 Jun 2010


Re: Another ontological argument

Postby Dave_Oblad on December 20th, 2016, 10:35 pm 

Hi Don,

Interesting point.

Are Humans naturally occurring?
Aren't Humans made by Humans?
If we produce natural things (such as Humans) then isn't anything produced by Humans also natural by extension?

If we void natural things as not being man made.. does that imply we are not natural things?

The shapes mentioned are 2D and we are 3D. But the cross section of a 3D sphere is a Circle and the cross section of a cone can be a Triangle. Is nature devoid of cones?

Just a few thoughts..

Regards,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3230
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: Another ontological argument

Postby Don Juan on December 21st, 2016, 2:07 am 

I think some answers to these questions may depend on the meaning of nature we take and on our understanding of the hierarchy of things as we reflect and make our abstractions. I am into the broad term for nature, thus it would include everything and also would be one of the highest or deepest level in the hierarchy - thus it will include man-made objects at the lower or superficial level of the hierarchy. But if we wish to distinguish man-made objects within nature then we can mark it at that position. Nature and artifacts do not occur at the same level at these considerations of meanings, being nature having the greater extension in the set which includes artifacts, a subset of nature.

Is nature devoid of cones?


Even unicorns exists at least as mental constructs.
Don Juan
Active Member
 
Posts: 1151
Joined: 17 Jun 2010


Re: Another ontological argument

Postby Scruffy Nerf Herder on December 21st, 2016, 4:22 am 

Dave_Oblad » December 20th, 2016, 2:49 am wrote:Is this sufficient proof or do you need more?


Neither is a triangle or a circle. They are representations of them but when examined closely they can't possibly conform perfectly to the dimensions defined.

Dave_Oblad » December 20th, 2016, 2:49 am wrote:I accept the Existence of a Tesseract, even though we can't see one in our Universe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesseract


Okay... what can you substantiate? Where are the fundamental premises here?
User avatar
Scruffy Nerf Herder
Member
 
Posts: 71
Joined: 29 Nov 2016


Re: Another ontological argument

Postby Don Juan on December 21st, 2016, 6:02 am 

Scruffy Nerf Herder wrote:Neither is a triangle or a circle. They are representations of them but when examined closely they can't possibly conform perfectly to the dimensions defined.


What do you mean by a triangle or a circle?
Last edited by Don Juan on December 21st, 2016, 6:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
Don Juan
Active Member
 
Posts: 1151
Joined: 17 Jun 2010


Re: Another ontological argument

Postby Don Juan on December 21st, 2016, 6:06 am 

Dave_Oblad wrote:
100 years ago, we didn't know the Billion(th) digit of PI.
Today, we know that value.
Did we invent that digit or has it always been that value.
If an Equation can define a Sequential value that pre-exists everything and those same principles are applied to a more complex Equation (cellular automaton) and deep within such a solution we find "You" existing in the same way as the Billion(th) digit of PI, then wouldn't we define your Existence as being just as valid?

Regards,
Dave :^)


There can be the pattern out there, but with the assumption that it is first made known through observation or detection of any sort. We do not deny the pattern, neither we say it is separated from the observer. One can safely say that the pattern is detected and coded by the observer according to his ways. The link between the observer and his context is so tight that one has to take emerging phenomenon upon their interaction as whole from an observer-in-an-environment perspective after analysis or detection.
Don Juan
Active Member
 
Posts: 1151
Joined: 17 Jun 2010


Re: Another ontological argument

Postby Old Rasputin on December 21st, 2016, 12:43 pm 

Scruffy wrote:
Positor wrote:I think this is enough to establish that Being (of some kind) exists. I mean "Being exists" in the non-tautological sense (i.e. I mean "there is Being" rather than "Being is Being").

Which is precisely what I was trying to argue there, thank you friend.

So “Being” here is a NOUN? (…a “thing”, an object)? Is it some-thing or is it no-thing? Does it have substance?

Scruffy wrote:Neither does anything in the OP imply physical being.

Here you seem to imply that this is a substance-less (non-physical) “Being”?

Aren’t you committing a logical contradiction here; i.e. an oxymoron, similar to a square circle, or married bachelor? …or can substance-less things/beings actually exist in reality?

If so, then WHERE?!! What is IT, that is being called "being"? If IT does not exist; then its name refers to nothing! -- And if it exists SOLELY in one’s imagination, then can we, in all seriousness, claim its existence as ‘real’? ...I can imagine 'flying pigs', but do they exist, are they real, solely based on my imagination?


Scruffy wrote:
Positor wrote:An Experiencer (and therefore also Experience) exists.
Therefore something exists.
Therefore there is Existence (i.e. Being).
Therefore Being exists.

Exactly.

So now here you seem to agree that this “Being” is an Experiencer (i.e. it is the "some-THING" that experiences), …true?

So why not just say “Experiencer is" instead of misleading and equivocating the different meanings of “Being” in your (flawed) argument?

Note: Experiencers are just experiencers; they experience 'effects' (experiences). Experiencers are not causers; they do not, nor cannot ‘cause’ things. (...which eliminates all your following premises that presume causations).

------

Scruffy, your starting premise ("Being is") is flawed (or misleading at best!). Change it to "Experiencer exists", and then you can logically attempt to construct your argument.
Old Rasputin
 


Re: Another ontological argument

Postby Scruffy Nerf Herder on December 29th, 2016, 11:37 pm 

mitchellmckain » December 20th, 2016, 1:24 pm wrote:Have you re-read the thread lately. I raised my objections in my first post.


If you still maintain those objections, then it doesn't appear we've made any progress at all. You basically criticized ontology for being ontology (by raising empirically minded objections against it), after which we got into an epistemological discussion.

mitchellmckain » December 20th, 2016, 1:24 pm wrote:Uh... wow... good example of both similarities and differences at the same time. I don't know much Latin and certainly had to look this up. I have no recognition for where this even came from despite my university and seminary education. So... it would perhaps be premature to claim that I can pray in such a way. But... glory to God and immitation of Christ? Sure, with qualifications...


Responding to "glory to God" and "imitation of Christ" with "sure, with qualifications" misses the point entirely. It's like reading Mere Christianity, or the Apostle's Creed, and saying "well I believe all of that but there is this too". What I quoted is a fairly common prayer, sorry if I gave the wrong impression by using Latin but the sentiment is quite simple, it's as beloved a prayer as the Magnificat (Mary's prayer of thanksgiving in the nativity). I was appealing to our common beliefs and heritage, that there is such a thing as "mere Christianity".

mitchellmckain » December 20th, 2016, 1:24 pm wrote:All glory to God, period? No. People should be praised for their accomplishments, for I am not going to get behind this bad habit of giving all credit for good things to God and all blame for bad things to man. But with regards to salvation -- DEFINITELY! I see no cause for credit being given to anyone but God for the spiritual salvation of human beings.


Deum glorificare isn't the same as soli Deo gloria, so I'm not sure why you appear to be equating the two.

mitchellmckain » December 20th, 2016, 1:24 pm wrote:Is the life of Christ the absolute and unvariable blueprint for how all human beings should live and be measured? No. We do not have to live in the dark ages (or ancient human culture) in order to be righteous. But the life of Christ can be taken as an example a perfect human life to the degree where we can ask ourselves what would Jesus do in a particular situation in order to give ourselves some intuition about what is right. But this is just a useful rule of thumb and not a replacement for sound reasoning and evidence which shows why some things are demonstrably bad for people and other things have no demonstrable harm in them.


This also is reading way too much into the phrase. Imitation of Christ has always been a common theme amongst Christians, most prominently discussed in the Pauline Epistles. Appealing to the principle of being in the Image, and working towards conformity, doesn't imply wearing sandals and a tunic.

mitchellmckain » December 20th, 2016, 1:24 pm wrote:... You should examine the difference between what I said and your summary of it, i.e. between "no longer see any reason to presume commonality" and "don't think we have much in common." I would guess we have much in common but I now see reason to be more cautious about presuming what those commonalities are exactly.


I can see what you mean. The former phrase isn't too hard to interpret as the latter.
User avatar
Scruffy Nerf Herder
Member
 
Posts: 71
Joined: 29 Nov 2016


Re: Another ontological argument

Postby Old Rasputin on January 24th, 2017, 4:53 pm 

Scruffy Nerf Herder wrote:Being is. That is, something exists. This is the principle of existence.

Some seem to think that Existence-exists (or "Being is"), is self-evident, and undeniable. Not so. Existence does NOT exist for rocks. Existence ONLY (subjectively) exists for those things that can experience existence.

It is the experiencing of existence/being that exists with certainty. The objects of experiencing cannot be known to exist with certainty.

The ‘experiencing’-of-something is much more certain (and less mysterious) than the ‘something’ itself.
Old Rasputin
 


Re: Another ontological argument

Postby mitchellmckain on January 24th, 2017, 10:10 pm 

Old Rasputin » January 24th, 2017, 3:53 pm wrote:It is the experiencing of existence/being that exists with certainty.
[/i]

Are you sure about that?

Suppose I take some arbitrary chosen stream of data (could be a film perhaps) and then I program some software to record that data and report that it is experiencing this. I give it all the AI functions that have been developed so far but to all queries about stream of data even its own queries it is programmed to respond that it is experiencing that stream of data.

Is that all that experience consists of? It is only required that we tell everyone including ourselves that something is so for it to be true?

Or maybe... this experiencing really isn't any more certain than any of the other stuff. I would suggest that certainty is the real delusion here -- merely hot air that people blow in order to push their perspective and beliefs onto other people. Once this nonsense about certainty is dispensed with then we come to a much more significant criterion: that which is useful for living our life. Then of course, we are going to run smack into the difficulty that different people are likely to find different things useful for that purpose. But we can distinguish among these things some which are objective because following a written procedure gives the same result for everyone. This is how we escape the mental poverty of solipsism.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Active Member
 
Posts: 1313
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: Another ontological argument

Postby Old Rasputin on January 25th, 2017, 5:03 pm 

mitchellmckain wrote:Suppose I take some arbitrary chosen stream of data (could be a film perhaps) and then I program some software to record that data and report that it is experiencing this. I give it all the AI functions that have been developed so far but to all queries about stream of data even its own queries it is programmed to respond that it is experiencing that stream of data.

When I say “experiencing” I am referring to the sensing/feeling itself, and not to the stuff (“data”) that is (supposedly) being sensed/felt.


mitchellmckain wrote:Or maybe... this experiencing really isn't any more certain than any of the other stuff.

Not so. And again, I am not referring to the “stuff”; those ‘objects’ of experiencing, I am referring to the ‘experiencing’ itself.

Experiencing is impossible to deny. The mere act of denying only affirms its existence.


mitchellmckain wrote:I would suggest that certainty is the real delusion here -- merely hot air that people blow in order to push their perspective and beliefs onto other people.

Sounds like you have a low opinion of “certainties”. When I say “certainties” I mean that which exists independent of one’s perceptions. In other words, that which is ‘real’.

Certainly you would agree that ‘experiencing exists’ is a certainty, …true?


mitchellmckain wrote:Once this nonsense about certainty is dispensed with then we come to a much more significant criterion: that which is useful for living our life.

Isn’t this a philosophy forum? Aren’t we all searching for the ‘real’ stuff here? What does “usefulness” have to do with the certainties of reality? Living a “useful life" with imaginary and fictitious notions is not my idea of living life.

Sorry Mitch, I know the “usefulness of life” is important to you, and probably many others. But it is useless to me.
Old Rasputin
 


Re: Another ontological argument

Postby rajnz00 on January 26th, 2017, 8:34 am 

Dave_Oblad on December 20th, 2016, 4:32 am wrote

An awful lot of hogwash
My final hypothesis eliminates the per-requirement of Time, Space and Energy

Do you mean pre-requirement? Your final hypothesis dissolves into nothingness, you can’t explain it so it don’t exist - cool
We Exist within the Solution of an Equation

We do exist? Make up your mind. (Difficult when it don’t exist)
Again: PI = 3.1415....

What's Pi gotta do with it?
We didn't create that value

Taint a value. Tis a number. Ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter.
The value has a sequence (Time).

What? Value? Sequence? Time? Where does the sequence come from? Talk sense man
The value has a beginning (3). ??? The sequence may be endless

Again aint a sequence. Just a number. A constant number. Hasn't changed since Pythagoras's’ and Archimedes time. You discovered something?
Take these principles and apply them to a Cellular Automaton and we get interactive progressions.
If a Cellular Automation Equation, after growth and complexity, contains self aware life forms (or a God), then do those life forms Exist.. if their Existence is only within that solution?
(I'm sure they think they Exist...lol)

What principles? a Cellular Automaton? interactive progressions? You talking in riddles.

You are the inverse of Galileo, Newton, Einstein. They made complicated things simple. You make simple things complicated.

But you have convinced me God exists. Only he could figure out what you are talking about.
rajnz00
Member
 
Posts: 274
Joined: 28 Dec 2016


Re: Another ontological argument

Postby Dave_Oblad on January 27th, 2017, 1:59 pm 

Hi Raj,

My statement was addressed to Dragonfly about the origin of our existence. All such current ideas on the subject require the pre-existence of Time. I start from a true beginning of an absolute void.. meaning no Time, Space, Distance, Energy, Matter or Dimensions. His Hypothesis requires the pre-existence of Time and Space.

So what is left to work with? (Time?)

DaveOblad wrote:
Tell me about it..lol. I beat myself up for a long time over that. My final hypothesis eliminates the per-requirement of Time, Space and Energy.

We Exist within the Solution of an Equation.

Again: PI = 3.1415....
We didn't create that value.
The value has sequence (Time).
The value has a beginning (3).
The sequence may be endless.
The sequence has change.
The whole is a constant.
Take these principles and apply them to a Cellular Automaton and we get interactive progressions.

If a Cellular Automation Equation, after growth and complexity, contains self aware life forms (or a God), then do those life forms Exist.. if their Existence is only within that solution?
(I'm sure they think they Exist...lol)


Ok Raj, I'm not going to address your issues on a per-line basis.
PI is a Value, is a Number, and is a Sequence of Numbers.
Most everyone on this Forum will recognize this decimal number sequence: "3.14159..."
It has never changed and has existed since the beginning of Time in our Universe.

We find the solution by using an Equation.

This Equation is an Iteration Loop with each pass producing the next digit in Sequence. In my Hypothesis on the Origin of the Universe, Time is Sequence.

The computation for PI must pass through all digits.. meaning it can't skip to some arbitrary depth. The computation contains no such expression that says: "Pause here".. thus this sequence has no embedded duration for computation.

Thus an Equation can define a Sequential Solution without embedded Duration in that Sequence.

And that is why I use it for demonstration of the Nature of our Universe. I don't care what the real purpose for PI actually is (Circumference/Radius of a Circle).

I then relate this concept to a Cellular Automation as having the same math/logic characteristics.. except such Cellular solutions can have many Dimensions with Interactive Values as a progressive Sequence without built-in Duration which I relate to the Quantum Foundation of Our Reality.

A Cellular Automaton Computes its own Existence based on a set of Rules (the Equation aspect). It provides a working Hypothesis describing the origin of our Reality in an absolute Void that is never anything but that Absolute Void. All such potential Solutions Exist for all possible Equations or Rule Sets. Each solution does not overlap or interfere with co-solutions. They take up no Real Space or Time etc, as such features don't Exist in an Absolute Void. Since Duration is not an aspect of an Automaton, such sequences are instantaneous and the reason why, on our Macro Scale, measurements of the Quantum are Indeterminate. Also, a reasonable explanation for Quantum Particles jumping into, and out of, existence (virtual particles).

This Whole Quantum Universe, that we find ourselves inside of, is Computing its own Existence. We are fortunate to Exist inside such an Automaton version that is more than pure Garbage Noise Patterns. Because this Automaton is Growing with new surface layers being added, we get our Macro Version of Duration, as we Exist on the 3D Growing Surface of a growing 4D Automaton (Expanding Block Model).

That this New Growth is adding Distance onto a Surface, then Time (our concept of such) is actually the addition of New Relative Growing Distance. That our Existence is spread over such a Growing Distance in a cyclic format, we get Temporal Thickness.. that we perceive as Duration.

That this Growth forces a limit on lateral 3D movement of information, we must Exist with a forced speed limit called Light Speed.

Thus.. The whole Universe is only composed of Interrelated Interactive Information and there is no such thing as a True Solid in our Reality.

As a parting note.. I see such a Quantum Automaton Computer Universe might be complex enough to have its own Intelligence or self awareness. Thus a Cosmic God might Exist as the Universe itself and possibly be tweaking its own internal structure to give a more substantial Reality, or Persistence, to complex structures we call Matter. Possibly with the end goal of allowing Intelligent Independent Creatures to evolve within its own Mind.. which I call "Making a few new Friends". Why? Such a Universe, being unable to interact with other such Universes, would make for an awfully lonely boring Existence.

Anyway, (Raj) if you spent more time on Understanding rather than Shredding, life would be much more easy for you (and the rest of us too).

Now, if you have a better explanation for how we got here.. please elucidate.

Best wishes all,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3230
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: Another ontological argument

Postby rajnz00 on January 27th, 2017, 7:40 pm 

Dave_Oblad on January 27th, 2017, 1:59 pm wrote: if you spent more time on Understanding rather than Shredding, life would be much more easy for you (and the rest of us too).

Dave, shredding is good. Gets rid of rubbish so that we can see clearer things that matter. Would you be happy to plunge headfirst into a room full of horse dung, to perhaps discover a small uncut diamond, which for all the world looked like a tiny pebble?
I don't care what the real purpose for PI actually is (Circumference/Radius of a Circle)…. We find the solution by using an Equation. This Equation is an Iteration Loop with each pass producing the next digit in Sequence. In my Hypothesis on the Origin of the Universe, Time is Sequence.

If you are discussing Pi, you should care what Pi actually is and it’s not "Circumference/Radius of a Circle". An iterative algorithm is not an equation. Iterative algorithms are used to compute the value of Pi, they do not define it, nor are they an equation. The only equation is the definition of Pi which stems from geometry π=C/d

You are trying to extract meaning from the decimal numbers rather from the geometry and thus getting totally muddled like someone staring at scattered tea leaves and trying to extract meaning from them.

Infinite other irrational numbers stem from geometry and they would be different for different number based systems.

Your hypothesis claims something came from nothing, which I find absurd.

But perhaps time could be computed from the expansion of the universe. That is entirely possible and possibly holds clues to deeper insights.
rajnz00
Member
 
Posts: 274
Joined: 28 Dec 2016


Re: Another ontological argument

Postby mitchellmckain on January 27th, 2017, 8:56 pm 

Old Rasputin » January 25th, 2017, 4:03 pm wrote:
mitchellmckain wrote:Suppose I take some arbitrary chosen stream of data (could be a film perhaps) and then I program some software to record that data and report that it is experiencing this. I give it all the AI functions that have been developed so far but to all queries about stream of data even its own queries it is programmed to respond that it is experiencing that stream of data.

When I say “experiencing” I am referring to the sensing/feeling itself, and not to the stuff (“data”) that is (supposedly) being sensed/felt.

But I think your wrong. This concepts of sensing and feeling are abstractions which we apply to rationalize things after the fact. Modern scientists are discovering that the deconstruction of the "experiencing" process has no limits and you can break it down into lots of separate processes and it looks like what we are identifying as "experiencing" is actually more a cosmetic occurrence after the fact. It is my observation that our decision to stop at what you decide is "actual" experiencing is no less arbitrary than what someone else decides is the fundamental reality that we should be "certain" of.


Old Rasputin » January 25th, 2017, 4:03 pm wrote:
mitchellmckain wrote:Or maybe... this experiencing really isn't any more certain than any of the other stuff.

Not so. And again, I am not referring to the “stuff”; those ‘objects’ of experiencing, I am referring to the ‘experiencing’ itself.

In the face of modern discoveries in neuroscience this does not look very grounded to me. I think a strong case can be made that what you are talking about IS just more stuff.

Old Rasputin » January 25th, 2017, 4:03 pm wrote:Experiencing is impossible to deny. The mere act of denying only affirms its existence.

LOL
Experiencing could be just as much an illusion as everything else.
I think freedom of will is just as central to the human experience of existence as your "experiencing."

Old Rasputin » January 25th, 2017, 4:03 pm wrote:
mitchellmckain wrote:I would suggest that certainty is the real delusion here -- merely hot air that people blow in order to push their perspective and beliefs onto other people.

Sounds like you have a low opinion of “certainties”. When I say “certainties” I mean that which exists independent of one’s perceptions. In other words, that which is ‘real’.

Certainly you would agree that ‘experiencing exists’ is a certainty, …true?

No. Certainties are an illusion and a trick of rhetoric.

Old Rasputin » January 25th, 2017, 4:03 pm wrote:
mitchellmckain wrote:Once this nonsense about certainty is dispensed with then we come to a much more significant criterion: that which is useful for living our life. Then of course, we are going to run smack into the difficulty that different people are likely to find different things useful for that purpose.

Isn’t this a philosophy forum? Aren’t we all searching for the ‘real’ stuff here? What does “usefulness” have to do with the certainties of reality? Living a “useful life" with imaginary and fictitious notions is not my idea of living life.

Sorry Mitch, I know the “usefulness of life” is important to you, and probably many others. But it is useless to me.


What do I care about your fabricated certainties? They are meaningless to me. Philosophy which doesn't help people to deal with their existence is meaningless, and therein lies the usefulness I am talking about. There is no such thing as a "useful life" (all your totally weird idea) -- being alive is contrary to being a tool (a means to an end). But every living thing distinguishes between that which is useful (and meaningful) to them and that which is not. The fact what is found useful differs between different living organisms is a given. What gets delusional is when they project their subjective judgments upon everyone and imagine it to be some kind of objective reality.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Active Member
 
Posts: 1313
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: Another ontological argument

Postby Dave_Oblad on January 28th, 2017, 4:42 am 

Hi Raj,

An Equation is any mathematical expression that has the form Expression=Expression. What defines it as an Equation is the use of the Equal Sign (=).

Wiki shows a number of sample equations that look like "Pi=(Formula)".
Yes the Formula(s) are Iteration Algorithms and I even called them Iteration Loops.

5=5 is an Equation.
A=B is an Equation.
Pi=3.14159 is an Equation.
Pi=(formula) is an Equation.

Anyway...

Raj wrote:Your hypothesis claims something came from nothing, which I find absurd.

So, please give us your Hypothesis on how our Universe came into Existence.
Let's see if it is any less absurd than mine.

Any Hypothesis that Starts with Something (Time, Energy, Space) need to explain where/how that Something came to Exist.

Regards,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3230
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: Another ontological argument

Postby rajnz00 on January 29th, 2017, 8:30 am 

Hi Dave,
I know what an equation is, but you seem to be confused.
Pi is not = 3.14159
Pi is not = an "Iteration Loop"
Pi is = C/d That is what it is equal to

Nothing collapses to a "singularity". That is absurd. At most matter collapses upto a Planck distance and then it rebounds. That is what must have happened with the Universe. It preserves all its information and fundamental laws.
Regards
Raj
rajnz00
Member
 
Posts: 274
Joined: 28 Dec 2016


Re: Another ontological argument

Postby Dave_Oblad on January 29th, 2017, 5:32 pm 

Hi Raj,

Raj wrote:Pi is not = 3.14159

3.14159 is the most common value used for Pi says Google with 660,000,000 hits on this expression. Show the value 3.14159 to virtually any math savvy person and they will instantly tell you that number is Pi.

But if you prefer greater accuracy then:
https://www.math.utah.edu/~pa/math/pi.html

Raj wrote:Pi is not = an "Iteration Loop"

Pi_Is.jpg

Pi_As.jpg

After a brief search of the net I found too many examples of "Pi=(iteration formula)" to show them all here on a single thread.

Raj wrote:Pi is = C/d That is what it is equal to

Ok, so "Pi = C/d" (which is an Equation BTW).

But..
Wiki wrote:Because its definition relates to the circle, Pi is found in many formulae in trigonometry and geometry, especially those concerning circles, ellipses or spheres. Because of its special role as an eigenvalue, Pi appears in areas of mathematics and the sciences having little to do with the geometry of circles, such as number theory and statistics. It is also found in cosmology, thermodynamics, mechanics and electromagnetism. The ubiquity of Pi makes it one of the most widely known mathematical constants both inside and outside the scientific community.

So, not everyone uses Pi as just being C/d. I used it as an example of an infinite non-repeating number series produced from Iteration.

Raj wrote:At most matter collapses up to a Planck distance and then it rebounds. That is what must have happened with the Universe. It preserves all its information and fundamental laws.

Really? I must have missed that memo. So far, all matter "Decays" eventually and Black Holes are thought to Evaporate over enough time.

Resorting to Infinite Regression arguments is a cheap dodge because:
1. With an expanding Universe, it's not likely to rebound, or.. we are in the last Universe.
2. It avoids defining the Origin of the "First Universe" if true.

Ask any Math Savvy person to define the 6th digit of Pi. They will say "9" as in 3.14159. Thus, with so many observers that agree, we must conclude that the 6th digit of Pi Exists.

My Primary point is that "We Exist" in exactly the same way.

That our existence is defined within the expression of a 4D Iterative Equation. That we are solely a completely Mathematical Existence. And I'm not talking about floating point Math, I'm talking about Boolean Algebra & Geometry or Ie: a Cellular Automaton.

Not too long ago, many folks thought the "Solar Centrist" view was Absurd. They dun learned real good in time.. lol.

Regards,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3230
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: Another ontological argument

Postby rajnz00 on January 29th, 2017, 6:31 pm 

Dave was a splendid ole guy
Whose grasp of maths didn’t fly
But I’ll feel really glad
And not particularly mad
The day he can understand Pi
rajnz00
Member
 
Posts: 274
Joined: 28 Dec 2016


Re: Another ontological argument

Postby Dave_Oblad on January 29th, 2017, 10:52 pm 

Hi Raj,

If it was your intent to look foolish in the eyes of the Audience following this thread.. then you are doing a magnificent job. Bravo.. Two big thumbs up.. You nailed it.. Congratulations!

Ok.. seriously.. is a cute poem the best response you could come up with? I spent several hours researching my previous post to make it rock solid. How long did you spend on that cute poem?

And more importantly.. Why?

Best wishes,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3230
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


PreviousNext

Return to Metaphysics & Epistemology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests