On 9 Mar 2021, at 4:35 pm, Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUhVzMPt0C-FwzOwa6yes_MtxNiL0ZJyFC-MLvf97Ao1xQ%40mail.gmail.com.
What was there before there was nothing?
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4CA9F7FE-035C-4173-9DD5-E9060BAD43A1%40ozemail.com.au.
On 9 Mar 2021, at 7:23 pm, Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUi1TtiYK_6Aat4A2NxGu%3DEUx1SeWGrer-AkLjoUoWojLw%40mail.gmail.com.
On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 12:57 AM Kim Jones <kimj...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
What was there before there was nothing?
I don't believe reality was ever a state of absolute nothingness. Rather, there are things that exist necessarily: logical laws, truth, properties of numbers, etc. Some of these truths and number relations concern and define all computational histories, and the appearance of a physical reality is a result of these computations creating consciousness observers. See: https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#A_Story_of_Creation
Nothingness is a paradoxical thing. Does nothingness exist? If so, then by having existential properties it is not pure nothingness. If nothingness does not exist then there must exist something. In a sense God is the antithesis of nothingness and in a sense shares the same paradoxical issue.
LCOn Monday, March 8, 2021 at 11:34:51 PM UTC-6 Jason wrote:I wrote up my thoughts on the question of "Why does anything exist?"I thought members of the list might appreciate some of the references included in it. My thinking on this question has of course been greatly expanded and influenced through my interactions with many of you over the past decade.I welcome any feedback, thoughts, corrections, or questions regarding anything written.Sincerely,Jason
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b2812fb2-d496-4630-b534-f49c27569b9cn%40googlegroups.com.
> What was there before there was nothing?
> There is a strange and paradoxical sort of identity between nothing and everything,
On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 9:41 AM Lawrence Crowell <goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote:Nothingness is a paradoxical thing. Does nothingness exist? If so, then by having existential properties it is not pure nothingness. If nothingness does not exist then there must exist something. In a sense God is the antithesis of nothingness and in a sense shares the same paradoxical issue.There is a strange and paradoxical sort of identity between nothing and everything, particularly as it relates to information theory. Insofar as the total set of all possibilities has zero information content.
This is the main subject of Russell Standish's book: Theory of Nothing: https://www.hpcoders.com.au/nothing.html
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 6:00 AM Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 9:41 AM Lawrence Crowell <goldenfieldquaternions@gmail.com> wrote:Nothingness is a paradoxical thing. Does nothingness exist? If so, then by having existential properties it is not pure nothingness. If nothingness does not exist then there must exist something. In a sense God is the antithesis of nothingness and in a sense shares the same paradoxical issue.There is a strange and paradoxical sort of identity between nothing and everything, particularly as it relates to information theory. Insofar as the total set of all possibilities has zero information content.A random message string can contain zero information, but still exist -- written on a piece of paper, for example. This idea that zero information equates to 'nothing' is just an elementary confusion of categories.
This is the main subject of Russell Standish's book: Theory of Nothing: https://www.hpcoders.com.au/nothing.htmlThat is why Russell got so many things wrong in this book.Bruce
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTXSHt%3DASkdBiA%2Bh_-4d3FCAHMX7puXWq9_1tG%3DnjbXSg%40mail.gmail.com.
[Brent Meeker]
“https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#A_Story_of_Creation”
[Philip Benjamin] If nothing ever existed, nothing can exist today. “Ex nihilo, nihil fit” (Parmenides). Laws of any kind necessarily requires the existence of a conscious Law Giver. The logical question is: “what is more reasonable?” DEAD MATTER producing life or LIFE producing both dead matter and life-forms? Only a degree of rationality can be established here.
Civilized, erudite Phoenician, profligate pagan Augustine of Greco-Roman roots was instantly TRANSFORMED into a non-pagan and pulled the West off Greco-Roman paganism and superstitions (https://www.midwestaugustinians.org/conversion-of-st-augustine). Thus he was the chief architect of Western Civilization built on the foundation of the Apostolic discourse at Athenian Mars Hill (Acts 17) where the Greco-Roman Unknown god was identified as the aseitous Adonai (plural) YHWH (singular) Elohim (uni-plural) of the Patriarchs, Prophets and the Apostles.
Progressive pagans with un-awakened consciousness cannot escape the questions of causality, aseity, morality, meaning and telos by simply evading them or assuming illogically the aseity of Dead Matter.
Philip Benjamin
--.
On Tuesday, March 9, 2021, Bruce Kellett <bhkel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 6:00 AM Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 9:41 AM Lawrence Crowell <goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote:Nothingness is a paradoxical thing. Does nothingness exist? If so, then by having existential properties it is not pure nothingness. If nothingness does not exist then there must exist something. In a sense God is the antithesis of nothingness and in a sense shares the same paradoxical issue.There is a strange and paradoxical sort of identity between nothing and everything, particularly as it relates to information theory. Insofar as the total set of all possibilities has zero information content.A random message string can contain zero information, but still exist -- written on a piece of paper, for example. This idea that zero information equates to 'nothing' is just an elementary confusion of categories.
Random strings contain a maximum amount of entropy per bit and are incomprehensible. They may not signify anything useful but they require more bits to encode/represent than any less random string of the same length, so in that sense are maximal in the information they convey.I think you may be operating under a different definition of information than the standard Shannon sense of information theory.I grant that the equivalence between all strings and no strings is unintuitive,
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 6:00 AM Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 9:41 AM Lawrence Crowell <goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote:
Nothingness is a paradoxical thing. Does nothingness exist? If so, then by having existential properties it is not pure nothingness. If nothingness does not exist then there must exist something. In a sense God is the antithesis of nothingness and in a sense shares the same paradoxical issue.
There is a strange and paradoxical sort of identity between nothing and everything, particularly as it relates to information theory. Insofar as the total set of all possibilities has zero information content.
A random message string can contain zero information, but still exist -- written on a piece of paper, for example.
This idea that zero information equates to 'nothing' is just an elementary confusion of categories.
This is the main subject of Russell Standish's book: Theory of Nothing: https://www.hpcoders.com.au/nothing.html
That is why Russell got so many things wrong in this book.
Bruce
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTXSHt%3DASkdBiA%2Bh_-4d3FCAHMX7puXWq9_1tG%3DnjbXSg%40mail.gmail.com.
If nothing ever existed, nothing can exist today. “Ex nihilo, nihil fit” (Parmenides).
The law of identity determines what can possibly exist, namely that which is identical to itself. But what is the difference between a possibly existing object and a "really" existing object? I see no difference, and hence all possible objects exist, necessarily.
To which someone might say something like: "But there is a red car parked in front of my house. Isn't it possible that, at this moment, a blue car would be parked there instead? Then the blue car would be a possible object that obviously doesn't exist." Um, no. A red car can't be blue; that would be a contradiction, a violation of the law of identity, and hence impossible. A blue car might be parked in front of my house in a different possible world but then we are talking about a different world, and not really about my house either but rather about a copy of my house in that other world - and the fact that you can't see that other world is not a proof that it doesn't exist.
On 3/9/2021 3:03 PM, Tomas Pales wrote:
The law of identity determines what can possibly exist, namely that which is identical to itself. But what is the difference between a possibly existing object and a "really" existing object? I see no difference, and hence all possible objects exist, necessarily.
So everything that does not exist is something that cannot possibly exist. But does that mean in the future or just now. If it means just now then it's a trivial tautology, equivalent to "It is what it is." and has no useful content. But if it means now and the future, even confined to the near future, it's false.
To which someone might say something like: "But there is a red car parked in front of my house. Isn't it possible that, at this moment, a blue car would be parked there instead? Then the blue car would be a possible object that obviously doesn't exist." Um, no. A red car can't be blue; that would be a contradiction, a violation of the law of identity, and hence impossible. A blue car might be parked in front of my house in a different possible world but then we are talking about a different world, and not really about my house either but rather about a copy of my house in that other world - and the fact that you can't see that other world is not a proof that it doesn't exist.
c.f. Russell's teapot.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3789ecde-ec7c-479c-9e41-796a92470080n%40googlegroups.com.
On 3/9/2021 3:52 PM, Tomas Pales wrote:
On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 12:29:07 AM UTC+1 Brent wrote:
On 3/9/2021 3:03 PM, Tomas Pales wrote:
The law of identity determines what can possibly exist, namely that which is identical to itself. But what is the difference between a possibly existing object and a "really" existing object? I see no difference, and hence all possible objects exist, necessarily.
So everything that does not exist is something that cannot possibly exist. But does that mean in the future or just now. If it means just now then it's a trivial tautology, equivalent to "It is what it is." and has no useful content. But if it means now and the future, even confined to the near future, it's false.
When you talk about something you must define it. The temporal position of an object is part of its definition (identity). So when object X can exist at time t, then it must exist at time t. It's trivial, just an example of the law of identity.
To which someone might say something like: "But there is a red car parked in front of my house. Isn't it possible that, at this moment, a blue car would be parked there instead? Then the blue car would be a possible object that obviously doesn't exist." Um, no. A red car can't be blue; that would be a contradiction, a violation of the law of identity, and hence impossible. A blue car might be parked in front of my house in a different possible world but then we are talking about a different world, and not really about my house either but rather about a copy of my house in that other world - and the fact that you can't see that other world is not a proof that it doesn't exist.
c.f. Russell's teapot.
c.f. Granny's glasses - when she can't find them, they don't exist
The question is what is the difference between a possibly existing object and a "really" existing object? The fact that you don't see something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
That you can put it's name in a sentence doesn't mean it does exist either. Or even that it's (nomologically) possible.
On 9 Mar 2021, at 16:41, Lawrence Crowell <goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote:Nothingness is a paradoxical thing. Does nothingness exist? If so, then by having existential properties it is not pure nothingness. If nothingness does not exist then there must exist something. In a sense God is the antithesis of nothingness and in a sense shares the same paradoxical issue.
LCOn Monday, March 8, 2021 at 11:34:51 PM UTC-6 Jason wrote:I wrote up my thoughts on the question of "Why does anything exist?"I thought members of the list might appreciate some of the references included in it. My thinking on this question has of course been greatly expanded and influenced through my interactions with many of you over the past decade.I welcome any feedback, thoughts, corrections, or questions regarding anything written.Sincerely,Jason
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b2812fb2-d496-4630-b534-f49c27569b9cn%40googlegroups.com.
[Brent Meeker]
“Yeah, but what has he [Parmenides] published recently?”
[Philip Benjamin]
Facetious? A modern Parmenides will be one of the (late or alive) physicists who arbitrarily BELIEVE (not reason) in particle-wave duality and self-creating quantum world etc. Wave-likeness ≠ Waviness. Calculations based on both wave-likeness and waviness will be alike, just the same way as Geocentricism (from primitive astrology to Ptolemaic astronomy that was naturally defended by Ecclesiastical establishment) will yield verisimilar mathematical results as heliocentrism. Self-creation of anything is oxymoronic—something has to exist before it exists!! That is against all laws of logic!! No physics is ever against laws of logic. “Quantum vacuum” is no vacuum at all. Moreover one cannot ignore 95% of the missing (dark) matter as trivial or unreal. If 5% of the visible light-matter has chemistry, then 95% of invisible (dark) matter also has chemistry necessarily. No Parmenides can deny that. Dark-matter chemistry cannot but yield a dark-twin along with the light-twin from the moment of conception.
The entire acade-media (in fact, the whole world) can be divided into two and only two fundamental groups: 1. Pagan with un-awakened consciousness’ 2. Non-pagan with awakened consciousness.
The Western hemisphere was ‘once upon a time’ pulled out from the ethos of the pagan into that of the non-pagan thanks to the “instant transformation” of the 4 th Century Augustine. Today paganism in the West is the prevalent culture everywhere including the pulpits and the pews, thanks to the indoctrinations in the educational systems from KG through the highest levels.
Philip Benjamin
From: 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 5:22 PM
To: everyth...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Why Does Anything Exist?
On 3/9/2021 2:30 PM, Philip Benjamin wrote:
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/fb65d718-309e-0bff-f002-5aa6566d1474%40verizon.net.
On 10 Mar 2021, at 00:03, Tomas Pales <litew...@gmail.com> wrote:The law of identity determines what can possibly exist, namely that which is identical to itself. But what is the difference between a possibly existing object and a "really" existing object? I see no difference, and hence all possible objects exist, necessarily.
To which someone might say something like: "But there is a red car parked in front of my house. Isn't it possible that, at this moment, a blue car would be parked there instead? Then the blue car would be a possible object that obviously doesn't exist." Um, no. A red car can't be blue; that would be a contradiction, a violation of the law of identity,
and hence impossible. A blue car might be parked in front of my house in a different possible world but then we are talking about a different world, and not really about my house either but rather about a copy of my house in that other world - and the fact that you can't see that other world is not a proof that it doesn't exist.
On Tuesday, March 9, 2021 at 6:34:51 AM UTC+1 Jason wrote:I wrote up my thoughts on the question of "Why does anything exist?"I thought members of the list might appreciate some of the references included in it. My thinking on this question has of course been greatly expanded and influenced through my interactions with many of you over the past decade.I welcome any feedback, thoughts, corrections, or questions regarding anything written.Sincerely,Jason
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9d5489a4-9c5b-42d4-b8cd-12386afcef88n%40googlegroups.com.
On 10 Mar 2021, at 00:19, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
On 3/9/2021 2:00 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 6:00 AM Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 9:41 AM Lawrence Crowell <goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote:
Nothingness is a paradoxical thing. Does nothingness exist? If so, then by having existential properties it is not pure nothingness. If nothingness does not exist then there must exist something. In a sense God is the antithesis of nothingness and in a sense shares the same paradoxical issue.
There is a strange and paradoxical sort of identity between nothing and everything, particularly as it relates to information theory. Insofar as the total set of all possibilities has zero information content.
Even if it tells us what is not possible? I think you're getting in over your head. What kind of "possible" to you mean? Simple not self-contradictory? Nomological? Or what?
A random message string can contain zero information, but still exist -- written on a piece of paper, for example.
I agree with your basic point, but a random string carries maximum information, per Shannon. That's why maximally compressed string looks random; although you can't really define random in the information theoretic sense for finite strings.
Brent
--This idea that zero information equates to 'nothing' is just an elementary confusion of categories.
This is the main subject of Russell Standish's book: Theory of Nothing: https://www.hpcoders.com.au/nothing.html
That is why Russell got so many things wrong in this book.
Bruce
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTXSHt%3DASkdBiA%2Bh_-4d3FCAHMX7puXWq9_1tG%3DnjbXSg%40mail.gmail.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/60facf25-7c8b-1cd6-a1fc-f20d80406479%40verizon.net.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/fb65d718-309e-0bff-f002-5aa6566d1474%40verizon.net.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9f078e70-f8f1-4519-a1f7-6aa4c9be8150n%40googlegroups.com.
On 10 Mar 2021, at 00:19, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
On 3/9/2021 2:00 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 6:00 AM Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 9:41 AM Lawrence Crowell <goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote:
Nothingness is a paradoxical thing. Does nothingness exist? If so, then by having existential properties it is not pure nothingness. If nothingness does not exist then there must exist something. In a sense God is the antithesis of nothingness and in a sense shares the same paradoxical issue.
There is a strange and paradoxical sort of identity between nothing and everything, particularly as it relates to information theory. Insofar as the total set of all possibilities has zero information content.
Even if it tells us what is not possible? I think you're getting in over your head. What kind of "possible" to you mean? Simple not self-contradictory? Nomological? Or what?
A random message string can contain zero information, but still exist -- written on a piece of paper, for example.
I agree with your basic point, but a random string carries maximum information, per Shannon. That's why maximally compressed string looks random; although you can't really define random in the information theoretic sense for finite strings.
You can define randomness for finite strings, up to a constant.
Most universal machine will agree on some large string being random, but can differ on strings shorter than themselves, say. See the book by Calllude on the randomness of finite string.This is usually defined first, and then an infinite sequence is said to be random if almost all his initial segments are.
Bruno
Brent
--This idea that zero information equates to 'nothing' is just an elementary confusion of categories.
This is the main subject of Russell Standish's book: Theory of Nothing: https://www.hpcoders.com.au/nothing.html
That is why Russell got so many things wrong in this book.
Bruce
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTXSHt%3DASkdBiA%2Bh_-4d3FCAHMX7puXWq9_1tG%3DnjbXSg%40mail.gmail.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/60facf25-7c8b-1cd6-a1fc-f20d80406479%40verizon.net.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/386FCCCB-5232-4ED9-87DB-8A6C4EFD2E0A%40ulb.ac.be.
On 10 Mar 2021, at 00:03, Tomas Pales <litew...@gmail.com> wrote:The law of identity determines what can possibly exist, namely that which is identical to itself. But what is the difference between a possibly existing object and a "really" existing object? I see no difference, and hence all possible objects exist, necessarily.But what is an object?
I agree that Unicorn can exist, in the mind of some people, or in a dream, but most would say that Unicorn do no exist, because being fictional is part of their definition.
Or take a square circle, or a dog which is also a cat…
Why? A red can which is blue can be identical with itself. All odd natural number solution to 2x = x + 1 are equal to itself, despite not existing. Your self-identity criteria is too weak for being a criteria of existence.
On 3/10/2021 1:18 AM, Tomas Pales wrote:
Then you've either (1) changed the meaning of "real" existence (2) changed the meaning of possible or (3) gone mad.
--
Brent
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/11f2a79b-659f-730a-c7a6-aa4c15286915%40verizon.net.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ad09055f-874c-59d3-bf91-868b8bc962b2%40verizon.net.
On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 6:29:13 PM UTC+1 Brent wrote:
On 3/10/2021 1:18 AM, Tomas Pales wrote:
Then you've either (1) changed the meaning of "real" existence (2) changed the meaning of possible or (3) gone mad.
As I said, possible means identical to itself.
Now you tell me how it differs from "real".
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a45abe3e-31af-4619-a883-5eed60aec8e8n%40googlegroups.com.
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021, 4:38 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
On 3/10/2021 9:41 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021, 11:29 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
On 3/10/2021 1:18 AM, Tomas Pales wrote:
On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 6:40:51 AM UTC+1 Brent wrote:
On 3/9/2021 3:52 PM, Tomas Pales wrote:
On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 12:29:07 AM UTC+1 Brent wrote:
On 3/9/2021 3:03 PM, Tomas Pales wrote:
The law of identity determines what can possibly exist, namely that which is identical to itself. But what is the difference between a possibly existing object and a "really" existing object? I see no difference, and hence all possible objects exist, necessarily.
So everything that does not exist is something that cannot possibly exist. But does that mean in the future or just now. If it means just now then it's a trivial tautology, equivalent to "It is what it is." and has no useful content. But if it means now and the future, even confined to the near future, it's false.
When you talk about something you must define it. The temporal position of an object is part of its definition (identity). So when object X can exist at time t, then it must exist at time t. It's trivial, just an example of the law of identity.
To which someone might say something like: "But there is a red car parked in front of my house. Isn't it possible that, at this moment, a blue car would be parked there instead? Then the blue car would be a possible object that obviously doesn't exist." Um, no. A red car can't be blue; that would be a contradiction, a violation of the law of identity, and hence impossible. A blue car might be parked in front of my house in a different possible world but then we are talking about a different world, and not really about my house either but rather about a copy of my house in that other world - and the fact that you can't see that other world is not a proof that it doesn't exist.
c.f. Russell's teapot.
c.f. Granny's glasses - when she can't find them, they don't exist
The question is what is the difference between a possibly existing object and a "really" existing object? The fact that you don't see something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
That you can put it's name in a sentence doesn't mean it does exist either. Or even that it's (nomologically) possible.
I am not saying that something exists. I am not even saying that something is possible (identical to itself). I am just saying that if something is possible then it exists, because I don't see a difference between possible and "real" existence.
Then you've either (1) changed the meaning of "real" existence (2) changed the meaning of possible or (3) gone mad.
Brent
Then Minsky was mad:
Minsky says real is relative to "this"...not your meaning. He doesn't define what he means by possible. It's interesting that he takes as an example repeated addition and says he can't understand how there could be a world in which it doesn't exist. But only a moment before he's discussing things existing in computer games, which can only do finite arithmetic.
He said his preference would be to get rid of the word 'real' and only speak of 'possible', because exist doesn't add anything (except for the case of relative existence within the universe, like the button in his shirt).
But thinks it's a useless concept to speak of other possible universes being 'real', and prefers only using possible in that context.
Whether he thinks possibility by itself is enough for existence is not clear, but he suggests it when he says we could be part of the logical possibilities of a program that was never turned on.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUixuxUcPwWCaQU_ftwP7jgPtnOfXQVq4-xNfAR6N7026A%40mail.gmail.com.
On 3/10/2021 2:41 PM, Tomas Pales wrote:
On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 6:29:13 PM UTC+1 Brent wrote:
On 3/10/2021 1:18 AM, Tomas Pales wrote:
Then you've either (1) changed the meaning of "real" existence (2) changed the meaning of possible or (3) gone mad.
As I said, possible means identical to itself.I know you said it, but that doesn't make it so. Is it possible that there is a an even number greater than 2 which is not the sum of two primes? Is it real? Is it possible that there is a cardinal number between aleph0 and aleph1? Is it real? If you flip a coin is it possible it will come up heads? What's the difference between "possible" and "necessary".
On Thursday, March 11, 2021 at 12:15:43 AM UTC+1 Brent wrote:On 3/10/2021 2:41 PM, Tomas Pales wrote:
On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 6:29:13 PM UTC+1 Brent wrote:
On 3/10/2021 1:18 AM, Tomas Pales wrote:
Then you've either (1) changed the meaning of "real" existence (2) changed the meaning of possible or (3) gone mad.
As I said, possible means identical to itself.I know you said it, but that doesn't make it so. Is it possible that there is a an even number greater than 2 which is not the sum of two primes? Is it real? Is it possible that there is a cardinal number between aleph0 and aleph1? Is it real? If you flip a coin is it possible it will come up heads? What's the difference between "possible" and "necessary".If there is a contradiction in the definition of an object, that means that the law of identity is violated and the object is not identical to itself and hence is not possible. There is no difference between possible and necessary in the absolute sense because every possible object exists necessarily in reality as a whole.
On Thursday, March 11, 2021 at 12:15:43 AM UTC+1 Brent wrote:
On 3/10/2021 2:41 PM, Tomas Pales wrote:
On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 6:29:13 PM UTC+1 Brent wrote:
On 3/10/2021 1:18 AM, Tomas Pales wrote:
Then you've either (1) changed the meaning of "real" existence (2) changed the meaning of possible or (3) gone mad.
As I said, possible means identical to itself.
I know you said it, but that doesn't make it so. Is it possible that there is a an even number greater than 2 which is not the sum of two primes? Is it real? Is it possible that there is a cardinal number between aleph0 and aleph1? Is it real? If you flip a coin is it possible it will come up heads? What's the difference between "possible" and "necessary".
If there is a contradiction in the definition of an object, that means that the law of identity is violated and the object is not identical to itself and hence is not possible. There is no difference between possible and necessary in the absolute sense because every possible object exists necessarily
in reality as a whole. The distinction between possible and necessary is used when talking about something that exists only in some possible worlds versus something that exists in every possible world, respectively.
Hi Jason
I can't think of any more fundamental question than 'why anything?'. The associated question 'why this something?' can be used to skewer most attempted TOE's, but from what I understand of your approach I agree that you avoid this fate, so just on those grounds alone I think it should be taken seriously. And there are not many other surviving candidates.
Embracing many different ideas at once requires some careful navigation though. For example, I am not sure how Bruno's link to Everett and the Born Rule (or equivalent) for the purposes of obtaining relative measures across worlds/histories (level 3 multiverse in Tegmark's notation) would connect up to that given by favouring shorter programs over longer ones (level 4).
The clarity of ideas presented in the article have helped to crystallize some of my own thoughts, and I would agree with much of its content. I hope that the article (and any book from it) is widely read and digested.
Alastair
Hi Jason
I can't think of any more fundamental question than 'why anything?'.
The associated question 'why this something?' can be used to skewer most attempted TOE's, but from what I understand of your approach I agree that you avoid this fate, so just on those grounds alone I think it should be taken seriously. And there are not many other surviving candidates.
Embracing many different ideas at once requires some careful navigation though. For example, I am not sure how Bruno's link to Everett
and the Born Rule (or equivalent) for the purposes of obtaining relative measures across worlds/histories (level 3 multiverse in Tegmark's notation)
would connect up to that given by favouring shorter programs over longer ones (level 4).
The clarity of ideas presented in the article have helped to crystallize some of my own thoughts, and I would agree with much of its content. I hope that the article (and any book from it) is widely read and digested.
On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 10:52 AM Tomas Pales <litew...@gmail.com> wrote:If there is a contradiction in the definition of an object, that means that the law of identity is violated and the object is not identical to itself and hence is not possible. There is no difference between possible and necessary in the absolute sense because every possible object exists necessarily in reality as a whole.That is known as 'begging the question' in that you have assumed the result that it is necessary for you to prove. In other words, you have a circular argument.
> I believe Chaitin has a definition of randomness that works for finite strings. If I remember correctly it has to do with the length of the shortest program that outputs the string being longer than the string itself.
.
On 3/10/2021 3:52 PM, Tomas Pales wrote:
On Thursday, March 11, 2021 at 12:15:43 AM UTC+1 Brent wrote:
On 3/10/2021 2:41 PM, Tomas Pales wrote:
On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 6:29:13 PM UTC+1 Brent wrote:
On 3/10/2021 1:18 AM, Tomas Pales wrote:
Then you've either (1) changed the meaning of "real" existence (2) changed the meaning of possible or (3) gone mad.
As I said, possible means identical to itself.
I know you said it, but that doesn't make it so. Is it possible that there is a an even number greater than 2 which is not the sum of two primes? Is it real? Is it possible that there is a cardinal number between aleph0 and aleph1? Is it real? If you flip a coin is it possible it will come up heads? What's the difference between "possible" and "necessary".
If there is a contradiction in the definition of an object, that means that the law of identity is violated and the object is not identical to itself and hence is not possible. There is no difference between possible and necessary in the absolute sense because every possible object exists necessarilyYou're avoiding the questions. Your coin coming up heads isn't an object.
Neither is the even number that is not the sum of two primes.
And as Bruno pointed out "object" is not well defined.
Is John Clark an object, or as he puts it "a verb".
On Thursday, March 11, 2021 at 10:27:35 PM UTC+1 Brent wrote:
On 3/11/2021 9:44 AM, Tomas Pales wrote:
On Thursday, March 11, 2021 at 1:26:27 AM UTC+1 Bruce wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 10:52 AM Tomas Pales <litew...@gmail.com> wrote:
If there is a contradiction in the definition of an object, that means that the law of identity is violated and the object is not identical to itself and hence is not possible. There is no difference between possible and necessary in the absolute sense because every possible object exists necessarily in reality as a whole.
That is known as 'begging the question' in that you have assumed the result that it is necessary for you to prove. In other words, you have a circular argument.
I don't have much of an argument for claiming that there is no difference between possible and "real" existence. I just can't even imagine any fundamental difference, I don't know what it would even mean.
Is there a dog in your room? Is it possible for a dog to be in your room? Do you understand those two questions?
Sure. And these are the answers: There is no dog in my room at this moment. It is impossible for a dog to be in my room at this moment.
Why is it impossible? Because it would be a contradiction if a dog was in a room where it is not. Like I said in a similar example, it might be possible in a different world but not in this one.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/163c15eb-46f7-46ff-95f1-ca1dd6e540a1n%40googlegroups.com.
On 3/11/2021 2:23 PM, Tomas Pales wrote:
On Thursday, March 11, 2021 at 10:27:35 PM UTC+1 Brent wrote:
On 3/11/2021 9:44 AM, Tomas Pales wrote:
On Thursday, March 11, 2021 at 1:26:27 AM UTC+1 Bruce wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 10:52 AM Tomas Pales <litew...@gmail.com> wrote:
If there is a contradiction in the definition of an object, that means that the law of identity is violated and the object is not identical to itself and hence is not possible. There is no difference between possible and necessary in the absolute sense because every possible object exists necessarily in reality as a whole.
That is known as 'begging the question' in that you have assumed the result that it is necessary for you to prove. In other words, you have a circular argument.
I don't have much of an argument for claiming that there is no difference between possible and "real" existence. I just can't even imagine any fundamental difference, I don't know what it would even mean.
Is there a dog in your room? Is it possible for a dog to be in your room? Do you understand those two questions?
Sure. And these are the answers: There is no dog in my room at this moment. It is impossible for a dog to be in my room at this moment.I didn't write "at this moment". So apparently you can't a question about what is possible.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7abcbe9c-016f-5b10-0dd2-abaa303824c5%40verizon.net.
On 10 Mar 2021, at 22:43, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
On 3/10/2021 7:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Mar 2021, at 00:19, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
On 3/9/2021 2:00 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 6:00 AM Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 9:41 AM Lawrence Crowell <goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote:
Nothingness is a paradoxical thing. Does nothingness exist? If so, then by having existential properties it is not pure nothingness. If nothingness does not exist then there must exist something. In a sense God is the antithesis of nothingness and in a sense shares the same paradoxical issue.
There is a strange and paradoxical sort of identity between nothing and everything, particularly as it relates to information theory. Insofar as the total set of all possibilities has zero information content.
Even if it tells us what is not possible? I think you're getting in over your head. What kind of "possible" to you mean? Simple not self-contradictory? Nomological? Or what?
A random message string can contain zero information, but still exist -- written on a piece of paper, for example.
I agree with your basic point, but a random string carries maximum information, per Shannon. That's why maximally compressed string looks random; although you can't really define random in the information theoretic sense for finite strings.
You can define randomness for finite strings, up to a constant.
What does it mean "up to a constant”?
Most universal machine will agree on some large string being random, but can differ on strings shorter than themselves, say. See the book by Calllude on the randomness of finite string.This is usually defined first, and then an infinite sequence is said to be random if almost all his initial segments are.
Even with only two "l"s in his name, I find no reference to him. If you have a finite string you can just adopt a notation in which it has a short name, "Bob", and then it's Kolomogorov complexity is that of "Bob". So I don't see by what definition you can prove a finite string to be random.
Brent
Bruno
Brent
--This idea that zero information equates to 'nothing' is just an elementary confusion of categories.
This is the main subject of Russell Standish's book: Theory of Nothing: https://www.hpcoders.com.au/nothing.html
That is why Russell got so many things wrong in this book.
Bruce
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTXSHt%3DASkdBiA%2Bh_-4d3FCAHMX7puXWq9_1tG%3DnjbXSg%40mail.gmail.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/60facf25-7c8b-1cd6-a1fc-f20d80406479%40verizon.net.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/386FCCCB-5232-4ED9-87DB-8A6C4EFD2E0A%40ulb.ac.be.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ad09055f-874c-59d3-bf91-868b8bc962b2%40verizon.net.
On 10 Mar 2021, at 23:38, Tomas Pales <litew...@gmail.com> wrote:On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 4:12:21 PM UTC+1 Bruno Marchal wrote:On 10 Mar 2021, at 00:03, Tomas Pales <litew...@gmail.com> wrote:The law of identity determines what can possibly exist, namely that which is identical to itself. But what is the difference between a possibly existing object and a "really" existing object? I see no difference, and hence all possible objects exist, necessarily.But what is an object?Good question. Whatever an object is, it seems it must necessarily have these two kinds of relations to other objects:1) composition relation (the relation between a part and a whole, or between an object and a collection (combination, set) of objects that includes this object)2) instantiation relation (the relation between an object and its property)Having a composition relation means being a part or having a part (all objects are parts of a greater object, and some objects also have parts). Having an instantiation relation means having a property or being a property (all objects have a property, and some objects are also properties). Wouldn't you agree that every possible object must have these two kinds of relations?
The composition relation generates all possible collections (combinations, sets), down to empty collections (non-composite objects) and maybe even without bottom as long as there is no contradiction. And the instantiation relation generates all possible properties and objects that have these properties, down to collections (which are not properties of anything else) and maybe even without bottom as long as there is no contradiction.
So, there are two kinds of objects: collections and properties (roughly synonymous with concrete and abstract objects, respectively).
Actually, we might count relations as a third kind of object because, after all, they are something too. Abstract relations are also properties of concrete relations (for example the abstract/general composition relation is a property of any concrete composition relation).
I agree that Unicorn can exist, in the mind of some people, or in a dream, but most would say that Unicorn do no exist, because being fictional is part of their definition.Minds are parts of reality,
so parts of minds (like unicorns) are parts of reality too. Like every object, unicorns exist in the way in which they are defined, in this case as parts of minds. And maybe in some other world also outside of minds, as long as there is no contradiction.Or take a square circle, or a dog which is also a cat…These are not possible objects because their definition violates the law of identity. What is a circle that is not a circle? Nothing.Why? A red can which is blue can be identical with itself. All odd natural number solution to 2x = x + 1 are equal to itself, despite not existing. Your self-identity criteria is too weak for being a criteria of existence.A red car that is blue is a red car that is not red. Violation of law of identity, therefore nothing.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/cd4c87ad-ebdf-488a-9d0e-66e4f9d7e0f3n%40googlegroups.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f42bfc0d-3c1f-47fc-9929-5fbaf44b0d60n%40googlegroups.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2D-k2%3DA%2BY%3DT8SHQm-tgF7fpwmxRYvrc1Dt5VgQJ6CD2A%40mail.gmail.com.
I translate this by “an object is an element of a set together with some structure or laws. OK? So vectors, numbers, maps, can all be seen as (mathematical) object.
(And with mechanism, we can then deduce that there is no physical object, although the mind can easily approximate them by some “object” (build by the mind).
OK. In math we use often set theory, intuitively (or formally) to define, or better to represent, the different object we want to talk about.It is known that arithmetic (the natural numbers) can be used too, for most of the usual mathematics (including a lot of constructive real objects, and more, but not all real numbers)
“Concrete” is a tricky term which does not survive Mechanism, which reverse not just physics and psychology-theology, but also abstract and concrete. Just 0, s0, … are concrete, but a physical object like a table becomes abstract. It looks concrete phenomenologically, but that is because we have millions of neurons making us feel that way.
We cannot really invoke “reality” as its very nature is part of the inquiry.
A red car that is blue is a red car that is not red. Violation of law of identity, therefore nothing.
Fair enough, at least with a content relative to the metaphysics, or basic ontology we assume at the start.
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 6:00 AM Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 9:41 AM Lawrence Crowell <goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote:Nothingness is a paradoxical thing. Does nothingness exist? If so, then by having existential properties it is not pure nothingness. If nothingness does not exist then there must exist something. In a sense God is the antithesis of nothingness and in a sense shares the same paradoxical issue.There is a strange and paradoxical sort of identity between nothing and everything, particularly as it relates to information theory. Insofar as the total set of all possibilities has zero information content.
A random message string can contain zero information, but still exist -- written on a piece of paper, for example. This idea that zero information equates to 'nothing' is just an elementary confusion of categories.
[Brent Meeker]
“https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#A_Story_of_Creation”
[Philip Benjamin] If nothing ever existed, nothing can exist today. “Ex nihilo, nihil fit” (Parmenides). Laws of any kind necessarily requires the existence of a conscious Law Giver. The logical question is: “what is more reasonable?” DEAD MATTER producing life or LIFE producing both dead matter and life-forms? Only a degree of rationality can be established here.
Civilized, erudite Phoenician, profligate pagan Augustine of Greco-Roman roots was instantly TRANSFORMED into a non-pagan and pulled the West off Greco-Roman paganism and superstitions (https://www.midwestaugustinians.org/conversion-of-st-augustine). Thus he was the chief architect of Western Civilization built on the foundation of the Apostolic discourse at Athenian Mars Hill (Acts 17) where the Greco-Roman Unknown god was identified as the aseitous Adonai (plural) YHWH (singular) Elohim (uni-plural) of the Patriarchs, Prophets and the Apostles.
Progressive pagans with un-awakened consciousness cannot escape the questions of causality, aseity, morality, meaning and telos by simply evading them or assuming illogically the aseity of Dead Matter.
Philip Benjamin
From: 'Brent Meeker' Tuesday, March 9, 2021 12:38 PM everyth...@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Why Does Anything Exist?
On 3/9/2021 12:22 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 12:57 AM Kim Jones <kimj...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
What was there before there was nothing?
I don't believe reality was ever a state of absolute nothingness. Rather, there are things that exist necessarily: logical laws, truth, properties of numbers, etc. Some of these truths and number relations concern and define all computational histories, and the appearance of a physical reality is a result of these computations creating consciousness observers. See: https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#A_Story_of_Creation
But you're casually confounding different sense of "exist". Logical laws, number, etc are derivative on language. They don't "exist" physically. The logicians meaning of exist is just to satisfy a predicate. Any sensible discussion of "exist"needs to start with recognizing it has several different meanings.
Brent--.
So then is it possible that there is a dog in your bathroom, at this moment?
On 12 Mar 2021, at 14:42, Tomas Pales <litew...@gmail.com> wrote:On Friday, March 12, 2021 at 1:30:55 PM UTC+1 Bruno Marchal wrote:I translate this by “an object is an element of a set together with some structure or laws. OK? So vectors, numbers, maps, can all be seen as (mathematical) object.Yes.(And with mechanism, we can then deduce that there is no physical object, although the mind can easily approximate them by some “object” (build by the mind).Not sure what you mean by "physical”.
I regard as physical those mathematical objects that are in spacetime (and spacetime itself is a mathematical object too, a 4-dimensional space with one dimension somewhat different that the other three).
OK. In math we use often set theory, intuitively (or formally) to define, or better to represent, the different object we want to talk about.It is known that arithmetic (the natural numbers) can be used too, for most of the usual mathematics (including a lot of constructive real objects, and more, but not all real numbers)Reality may be bigger than arithmetic
and then we need set theory to capture it, no?
Well, we may never know if reality is bigger than arithmetic because it's impossible to prove that even arithmetic is consistent, let alone something bigger.
“Concrete” is a tricky term which does not survive Mechanism, which reverse not just physics and psychology-theology, but also abstract and concrete. Just 0, s0, … are concrete, but a physical object like a table becomes abstract. It looks concrete phenomenologically, but that is because we have millions of neurons making us feel that way.By "concrete" object I mean an object that is not a property.
For example, the general triangle (an abstract object) is a property of all concrete triangles such as ones I can draw on a piece of paper.
But a concrete triangle is not a property of anything. Same with tables; the concrete table in your room is not a property of anything but the abstract table ("table in general") is a property exemplified in all concrete tables.
We cannot really invoke “reality” as its very nature is part of the inquiry.I regard as reality all objects (that are identical to themselves, of course).
A red car that is blue is a red car that is not red. Violation of law of identity, therefore nothing.Fair enough, at least with a content relative to the metaphysics, or basic ontology we assume at the start.Without respecting law of identity, logical explosion will erase all differences between object and non-object, existence and non-existence, turning everything into nonsense. Paraconsistent logics arbitrarily deny law of identity in some circumstances and arbitrarily block explosion in some circumstances. They are meaningful and corresponding to reality only to the extent they affirm the law of identity.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7b43518a-1593-4c01-8437-fa92d34f93dcn%40googlegroups.com.
On 12 Mar 2021, at 16:56, Lawrence Crowell <goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote:On Tuesday, March 9, 2021 at 4:30:26 PM UTC-6 medinuclear wrote:[Brent Meeker]
“https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#A_Story_of_Creation”
[Philip Benjamin] If nothing ever existed, nothing can exist today. “Ex nihilo, nihil fit” (Parmenides).
Laws of any kind necessarily requires the existence of a conscious Law Giver.
The logical question is: “what is more reasonable?” DEAD MATTER producing life or LIFE producing both dead matter and life-forms? Only a degree of rationality can be established here.
The laws are constructs of the human mind. [Lawrence]
There may be patterns in nature, and we inductively infer them as laws.
The idea there must be a mind for anything to exist is silly.
Where did the mind come from, and if such a mind existed there was then no true nothingness.
Civilized, erudite Phoenician, profligate pagan Augustine of Greco-Roman roots was instantly TRANSFORMED into a non-pagan and pulled the West off Greco-Roman paganism and superstitions (https://www.midwestaugustinians.org/conversion-of-st-augustine). Thus he was the chief architect of Western Civilization built on the foundation of the Apostolic discourse at Athenian Mars Hill (Acts 17) where the Greco-Roman Unknown god was identified as the aseitous Adonai (plural) YHWH (singular) Elohim (uni-plural) of the Patriarchs, Prophets and the Apostles.
Progressive pagans with un-awakened consciousness cannot escape the questions of causality, aseity, morality, meaning and telos by simply evading them or assuming illogically the aseity of Dead Matter.
Philip Benjamin
From: 'Brent Meeker' Tuesday, March 9, 2021 12:38 PM everyth...@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Why Does Anything Exist?
On 3/9/2021 12:22 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 12:57 AM Kim Jones <kimj...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
What was there before there was nothing?
I don't believe reality was ever a state of absolute nothingness. Rather, there are things that exist necessarily: logical laws, truth, properties of numbers, etc. Some of these truths and number relations concern and define all computational histories, and the appearance of a physical reality is a result of these computations creating consciousness observers. See: https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#A_Story_of_Creation
But you're casually confounding different sense of "exist". Logical laws, number, etc are derivative on language. They don't "exist" physically. The logicians meaning of exist is just to satisfy a predicate. Any sensible discussion of "exist"needs to start with recognizing it has several different meanings.
Brent--.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/27d045ca-8d46-4eab-9084-3bcea523b826n%40googlegroups.com.
I comment both Benjamin and Lawrence.On 12 Mar 2021, at 16:56, Lawrence Crowell <goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote:On Tuesday, March 9, 2021 at 4:30:26 PM UTC-6 medinuclear wrote:[Brent Meeker]
“https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#A_Story_of_Creation”
[Philip Benjamin] If nothing ever existed, nothing can exist today. “Ex nihilo, nihil fit” (Parmenides).
OK. Key point.Laws of any kind necessarily requires the existence of a conscious Law Giver.
But here I disagree. Consciousness will be the non provable truth (about machine and by machine) related to their belief in some reality including oneself. Introspective machine/number can’t miss it.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/B4A08744-6D82-4B28-861B-2E21F6BA877B%40ulb.ac.be.
I comment both Benjamin and Lawrence.On 12 Mar 2021, at 16:56, Lawrence Crowell <goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote:On Tuesday, March 9, 2021 at 4:30:26 PM UTC-6 medinuclear wrote:[Brent Meeker]
“https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#A_Story_of_Creation”
[Philip Benjamin] If nothing ever existed, nothing can exist today. “Ex nihilo, nihil fit” (Parmenides).
OK. Key point.Laws of any kind necessarily requires the existence of a conscious Law Giver.
But here I disagree. Consciousness will be the non provable truth (about machine and by machine) related to their belief in some reality including oneself. Introspective machine/number can’t miss it.The logical question is: “what is more reasonable?” DEAD MATTER producing life or LIFE producing both dead matter and life-forms? Only a degree of rationality can be established here.
Both in the arithmetical reality, and in the physical reality, life is a simple consequence of the so called second recursion theorem by Kleene. It is the fact that piece of codes can encode all it needs to protect itself, to reproduce itself, to grow, develop, organise and evolved…Now, the physical reality is not a primitive primary reality, but an illusion common to all relative numbers, in almost all of their consistent histories.The laws are constructs of the human mind. [Lawrence]The expression of the laws are constructs of the human mind, but I guess you are OK that F=GmM/r^2 was as much approximately true before human life appears on this planet and after. OK?There may be patterns in nature, and we inductively infer them as laws.… OK, and we can sometimes deduce some laws from other, and verify with Nature. Then there are some mathematical laws, that we find by introspection and dialog with others.This is neutral with respect to the question of the origin of the physical reality. With Mechanism, the physical reality does not need to be assumed, and in fact cannot be assumed if we want get both the quanta and the qualia, as this requires a much simpler theory, like any Turing universal system/theory.The idea there must be a mind for anything to exist is silly.Yes. It is like abandoning to try to explain mind (and matter). It is better to not assume neither mind nor matter as fundamental. But we have to assume at least one universal machinery, and the old Pythagorean one works very well (natural numbers + the laws making it in a Turing universal system).Where did the mind come from, and if such a mind existed there was then no true nothingness.Yes. In fact it is the empty explanation “God made it”, which might work, actually, but only with a mathematically precise theory of God, and an explanation of it build the physical reality, or how it makes us believe in a physical reality.With mechanism we assume only “very elementary arithmetic” (PA without the induction axioms), and derive from this the existence of the universal numbers, and get physics from their own notion of observable. Physics becomes a statistics on the relative experience/dream by numbers emulated in Arithmetic, in virtue of the laws of + and *.What people miss is that the notion of computation is purely an arithmetical notion. See the book by Martin Davis, and its chapter 4, for a proof of this, but Gödel’s 1931 contains it already implicitly. Gödel missed it because he missed the Church-Turing thesis, and was quite skeptical until 1936 where he was convinced by Turing.
[Benjamin:]
Civilized, erudite Phoenician, profligate pagan Augustine of Greco-Roman roots was instantly TRANSFORMED into a non-pagan and pulled the West off Greco-Roman paganism and superstitions
(https://www.midwestaugustinians.org/conversion-of-st-augustine). Thus he was the chief architect of Western Civilization built on the foundation of the Apostolic discourse at Athenian Mars Hill (Acts 17) where the Greco-Roman Unknown god was identified as the aseitous Adonai (plural) YHWH (singular) Elohim (uni-plural) of the Patriarchs, Prophets and the Apostles.
Progressive pagans with un-awakened consciousness cannot escape the questions of causality, aseity, morality, meaning and telos by simply evading them or assuming illogically the aseity of Dead Matter.
I think that most “progressive pagans” never really assumed the existence of Dead Matter, nor even of any Matter, to begin with.Bruno
But what is an object?
We cannot really invoke “reality” as its very nature is part of the inquiry.I regard as reality all objects (that are identical to themselves, of course).I take x = x as a logical truth about identity. So every thing is equal to itself, and so, self-identity cannot be a criteria of (fundamental) existence.
But the collection of all sets equal to themselves, {x I x = x} is typically not a set, despite that collection is equal to itself.
You seem to assume everything at the start, but without defining things, that will lead easily to inconsistencies.
A square circle is equal to itself, arguably.
[Philip Benjamin]
Laws are NOT constructs of the human mind. The ‘expressions of the Laws’ are indeed human constructs. F=GmM/r^2 = ma is only a human expression of Laws governing an unknown force called gravity. ‘Unknown’ here means unknown to human consciousness that DID NOT and COULD NOT have CREATED ‘gravity’. From F = GmM/r2 = ma, where F is the gravitational force, G is the gravitational constant, M is the mass of the Earth, r is the radius of the Earth, and m is the mass of another object (near the surface of the Earth), GM/r2= a (The m's canceled out.) which allows solving for M, the mass of the Earth. M = ar^2/G, where a = 9.8m/sec^2, r = 6.4 x 10^6 m, and G = 6.67 x 10^-11m3/(kg sec^2). M = 9.8 x (6.4 x 10^6)^2/(6.67 x 10^-11) = 6.0 x 10^24kg. This mass, radius, gravity and their relationships etc. are not created by human minds!! Greek Eratosthenes calculated the radius of the earth comparing shadows in wells during the summer solstice about 230 B.C.
No human mind howsoever brilliant can escape facing the necessity of aseity of something or other. Only a degree of rationality can be settled here. What is MORE rational: Eternal dead-matter producing life (consciousness) or E ternal LIFE producing both dead-matter and life (consciousness)?
Philip Benjamin
everyth...@googlegroups.com <everyth...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Jason Resch verything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Why Does Anything Exist? On Sun, Mar 14, 2021, 5:24 AM Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
I comment both Benjamin and Lawrence.
On 12 Mar 2021, at 16:56, Lawrence Crowell <goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, March 9, 2021 at 4:30:26 PM UTC-6 medinuclear wrote:
[Brent Meeker]
“https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#A_Story_of_Creation”
[Philip Benjamin] If nothing ever existed, nothing can exist today. “Ex nihilo, nihil fit” (Parmenides).
OK. Key point.Laws of any kind necessarily requires the existence of a conscious Law Giver.
But here I disagree. Consciousness will be the non provable truth (about machine and by machine) related to their belief in some reality including oneself. Introspective machine/number can’t miss it.
What is it that makes the truths concerning consciousness unprovable?
Is it unprovable only by that machine where another entity using another more powerful system could prove it?
Is it a consequence of self reference?
Is it related to trying to prove statements of a form "Machine X cannot prove P"?
If I run a simulation of some entity on my computer, could I not prove statements about the knowledge/information states contained by it's mind?
What exactly are the limits of what can be proved? Is it just about qualia?
Jason
The logical question is: “what is more reasonable?” DEAD MATTER producing life or LIFE producing both dead matter and life-forms? Only a degree of rationality can be established here.
Both in the arithmetical reality, and in the physical reality, life is a simple consequence of the so called second recursion theorem by Kleene. It is the fact that piece of codes can encode all it needs to protect itself, to reproduce itself, to grow, develop, organise and evolved…
Now, the physical reality is not a primitive primary reality, but an illusion common to all relative numbers, in almost all of their consistent histories.
The laws are constructs of the human mind. [Lawrence]
The expression of the laws are constructs of the human mind, but I guess you are OK that F=GmM/r^2 was as much approximately true before human life appears on this planet and after. OK?
There may be patterns in nature, and we inductively infer them as laws.
… OK, and we can sometimes deduce some laws from other, and verify with Nature. Then there are some mathematical laws, that we find by introspection and dialog with others.
This is neutral with respect to the question of the origin of the physical reality. With Mechanism, the physical reality does not need to be assumed, and in fact cannot be assumed if we want get both the quanta and the qualia, as this requires a much simpler theory, like any Turing universal system/theory.
The idea there must be a mind for anything to exist is silly.
Yes. It is like abandoning to try to explain mind (and matter). It is better to not assume neither mind nor matter as fundamental. But we have to assume at least one universal machinery, and the old Pythagorean one works very well (natural numbers + the laws making it in a Turing universal system).
Where did the mind come from, and if such a mind existed there was then no true nothingness.
Yes. In fact it is the empty explanation “God made it”, which might work, actually, but only with a mathematically precise theory of God, and an explanation of it build the physical reality, or how it makes us believe in a physical reality.
With mechanism we assume only “very elementary arithmetic” (PA without the induction axioms), and derive from this the existence of the universal numbers, and get physics from their own notion of observable. Physics becomes a statistics on the relative experience/dream by numbers emulated in Arithmetic, in virtue of the laws of + and *.
What people miss is that the notion of computation is purely an arithmetical notion. See the book by Martin Davis, and its chapter 4, for a proof of this, but Gödel’s 1931 contains it already implicitly. Gödel missed it because he missed the Church-Turing thesis, and was quite skeptical until 1936 where he was convinced by Turing.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[Philip Benjamin]
general...@googlegroups.com Subject: [Consciousness-Online] RE: Why Does Anything Exist?
Philip Benjamin
Brent.
The laws are constructs of the human mind. [Lawrence]The expression of the laws are constructs of the human mind, but I guess you are OK that F=GmM/r^2 was as much approximately true before human life appears on this planet and after. OK?
On 14 Mar 2021, at 15:56, Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:On Sun, Mar 14, 2021, 5:24 AM Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:I comment both Benjamin and Lawrence.On 12 Mar 2021, at 16:56, Lawrence Crowell <goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote:On Tuesday, March 9, 2021 at 4:30:26 PM UTC-6 medinuclear wrote:[Brent Meeker]
“https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#A_Story_of_Creation”
[Philip Benjamin] If nothing ever existed, nothing can exist today. “Ex nihilo, nihil fit” (Parmenides).
OK. Key point.Laws of any kind necessarily requires the existence of a conscious Law Giver.
But here I disagree. Consciousness will be the non provable truth (about machine and by machine) related to their belief in some reality including oneself. Introspective machine/number can’t miss it.What is it that makes the truths concerning consciousness unprovable?
Is it unprovable only by that machine where another entity using another more powerful system could prove it?
Is it a consequence of self reference?
Is it related to trying to prove statements of a form "Machine X cannot prove P”?
If I run a simulation of some entity on my computer, could I not prove statements about the knowledge/information states contained by it's mind?
What exactly are the limits of what can be proved? Is it just about qualia?
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUhVa_qSZmh5Hxb3iAo%2BvdWF%2BD7h7fpUjpbNFkUFux3j7w%40mail.gmail.com.
Even the theological argument of creati ex nihilio is self-defeating, for there had to be a God in that argument. Does God exist? If so then there was not truly nothingness. If God does not exist the argument is meaningless.
BTW, I have Davis's book. He was a part of the quartet who showed the Hilbert thesis for a single method of p-adic numbers was false.
[Benjamin:]
Civilized, erudite Phoenician, profligate pagan Augustine of Greco-Roman roots was instantly TRANSFORMED into a non-pagan and pulled the West off Greco-Roman paganism and superstitions
And this lead to a 1000 year dark age. Besides, Augustine was not Phoenician but Berber. The original inhabitants of Carthage were dispersed or killed by the Romans with the 3rd Punic War. Carthage was largely a Roman city after that.(https://www.midwestaugustinians.org/conversion-of-st-augustine). Thus he was the chief architect of Western Civilization built on the foundation of the Apostolic discourse at Athenian Mars Hill (Acts 17) where the Greco-Roman Unknown god was identified as the aseitous Adonai (plural) YHWH (singular) Elohim (uni-plural) of the Patriarchs, Prophets and the Apostles.
Progressive pagans with un-awakened consciousness cannot escape the questions of causality, aseity, morality, meaning and telos by simply evading them or assuming illogically the aseity of Dead Matter.
I think that most “progressive pagans” never really assumed the existence of Dead Matter, nor even of any Matter, to begin with.BrunoBesides the discourse with Paul at Mars hill was a part of his program of establishing a new system of social control. This was why Paul made Christianity a success. He turned it into a social structure which appealed to some authority or truth "up there" and inaccessible to reasoning. This is an early version of Orwell's Big Brother, an imaginary all powerful and vengeful being who knows all --- "Big Brother is watching you." It is completely antithetical to scientific and rational reasoning.LC
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8bedf4c8-44e7-4777-a09e-4aaec18933a7n%40googlegroups.com.
On 14 Mar 2021, at 17:26, Tomas Pales <litew...@gmail.com> wrote:On Sunday, March 14, 2021 at 10:57:08 AM UTC+1 Bruno Marchal wrote:But what is an object?Anything that is identical to itself. It also seems necessary that every object is part of a greater object and has properties.
We cannot really invoke “reality” as its very nature is part of the inquiry.I regard as reality all objects (that are identical to themselves, of course).I take x = x as a logical truth about identity. So every thing is equal to itself, and so, self-identity cannot be a criteria of (fundamental) existence.Why not? Why would some objects that are identical to themselves exist and other objects that are identical to themselves would not exist? What would such an existential distinction even mean?
But the collection of all sets equal to themselves, {x I x = x} is typically not a set, despite that collection is equal to itself.I don't see a difference between collection and set.
And there is no collection of all collections, just like there is no biggest number.
You seem to assume everything at the start, but without defining things, that will lead easily to inconsistencies.I assume the law of identity for every object, so all inconsistencies are thereby ruled out.
A square circle is equal to itself, arguably.No, a square circle is a circle that is not a circle,
so it is not identical to itself. It is not an object, it's nothing.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3dc2d733-2d56-45d8-9c81-82e7b4655b75n%40googlegroups.com.
On 14 Mar 2021, at 18:47, Philip Benjamin <medin...@hotmail.com> wrote:[Philip Benjamin]
Laws are NOT constructs of the human mind. The ‘expressions of the Laws’ are indeed human constructs. F=GmM/r^2 = ma is only a human expression of Laws governing an unknown force called gravity. ‘Unknown’ here means unknown to human consciousness that DID NOT and COULD NOT have CREATED ‘gravity’. From F = GmM/r2 = ma, where F is the gravitational force, G is the gravitational constant, M is the mass of the Earth, r is the radius of the Earth, and m is the mass of another object (near the surface of the Earth), GM/r2= a (The m's canceled out.) which allows solving for M, the mass of the Earth. M = ar^2/G, where a = 9.8m/sec^2, r = 6.4 x 10^6 m, and G = 6.67 x 10^-11m3/(kg sec^2). M = 9.8 x (6.4 x 10^6)^2/(6.67 x 10^-11) = 6.0 x 10^24kg. This mass, radius, gravity and their relationships etc. are not created by human minds!! Greek Eratosthenes calculated the radius of the earth comparing shadows in wells during the summer solstice about 230 B.C.
No human mind howsoever brilliant can escape facing the necessity of aseity of something or other. Only a degree of rationality can be settled here. What is MORE rational: Eternal dead-matter producing life (consciousness) or E ternal LIFE producing both dead-matter and life (consciousness)?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/SA0PR11MB4704455AF26299282587E197A86D9%40SA0PR11MB4704.namprd11.prod.outlook.com.
On 16 Mar 2021, at 19:53, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
On 3/16/2021 2:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:If it doesn't depend on human thinking, then what does the "=" sign mean? What does "F" refer to?On 15 Mar 2021, at 10:23, smitra <smi...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
On 14-03-2021 20:03, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote:On 3/14/2021 3:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:There exists an as of yet unknown exact description of gravity. The leading term of the expansion of that theory for large distances, low energies and velocities will yield the Newtonian theory.I think "approximately true" implicitly assumes someone for whom theThe laws are constructs of the human mind. [Lawrence]The expression of the laws are constructs of the human mind, but I
guess you are OK that F=GmM/r^2 was as much approximately true
before human life appears on this planet and after. OK?
approximation is good enough. Someone with values and purpose.
Brent
It's not much different from saying that sin(x) = x + O(x^3)
I agree. "3,14 is an approximation of PI” is true, independently of any observer, even if it is a vague proposition. Its degree of precision are themselves independent of us, even if the taste for this or that precision might depend on us, and of some context.
I used “approximately true” because it is hard to find a law of physics which is not an approximation of such sort, but for the point I was making I was alluding to some such laws, and that would make sense for anyone realist on some physicai reality (fundamental or not). If not, then “the laws is a construct of mind” would be interpreted in an anthropomorphic way, like if the humans are at the origin of the physical reality. The fact that F = GmM/r^2 does not depend on some human thinking about “F= GmM/r^2.
In my view they refer to a model (in the physics sense) in which the equation expresses a relation between elements of the model.
That the model is a useful approximation does happen to depend on our circumstances.
If we lived a planet closely orbiting a red dwarf/black hole binary it might not be close enough to be considered useful, much less a "law”.
Brent might have confuse a law and a human (correct or incorrect) description of that law.
And what would an "incorrect description of a law" be?
One can say describing a cow as a bird is an incorrect description of a cow, because you can point to the cow and say "That is not a bird". But you can't point to a law, you can only point to a better approximation.
This difficulty appears also in arithmetic. The fact that the arithmetical reality run all computations must not be confuse with that fact that we can describe the computations in arithmetic, as a computation is not the same as a description of a computation, even if to prove that Arithmetic is Turing universal imposed *us* to go through those description. There is a complex pedagogical problem here. It is like the difference between the number 1 and the symbol “1”, those are extremely different entities. Nobody knows what the number 1 is, but everybody can handle it very easily, and the symbol “1” is anything you want, even the Mount Everest if you want, although that would not be a practical symbol, for sure.
But they handle it easily because they learn the rules for handling the symbol and the semantics for translating from symbols to the meaning.
Most people can't do even simple addition beyond one digit without using symbols at least mentally.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ae99fbf8-0dde-7a30-97db-b2b5df2d4b75%40verizon.net.
On 14 Mar 2021, at 17:26, Tomas Pales <litew...@gmail.com> wrote:A square circle is equal to itself, arguably.No, a square circle is a circle that is not a circle,Obviously, a square circle is a circle. It is a counter-example to the idea that a square cannot be a circle. It does not exist, but that does not make it different to itself. Even a Unicorn is equal to itself.The real problem of the square circle is that we don’t have provides definition, or we talk about something which cannot exist, so we can’t really build meaningful proposition about it, without being inconsistent.