something from nothing or always something

For discussing anything related to physics, biology, chemistry, mathematics, and their practical applications.

Moderator: Flannel Jesus

Re: something from nothing or always something

Postby iambiguous » Wed Jun 22, 2022 11:37 pm

Meno_ wrote:That would require resources not yet available to me2know.
For that reason alone I was tempted to change my reel name2AI.


But, resisted that urge as quite redundant and totally absurd.

As of yet.


Well, if the something we are a part of now did come out of nothing at all, who could ever have guessed it would include exchanges like this?

It may well not be God alone that works in mysterious ways!! :o
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46394
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: something from nothing or always something

Postby Meno_ » Wed Jun 22, 2022 11:44 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Meno_ wrote:That would require resources not yet available to me2know.
For that reason alone I was tempted to change my reel name2AI.


But, resisted that urge as quite redundant and totally absurd.

As of yet.


Well, if the something we are a part of now did come out of nothing at all, who could ever have guessed it would include exchanges like this?

It may well not be God alone that works in mysterious ways!! :o




Yes good question.
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13270
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: something from nothing or always something

Postby MagsJ » Thu Jun 23, 2022 1:01 am

origami wrote:
MagsJ wrote:As much as I fully understand what you are stating here, I cannot agree.. the paradox ensues.. because your words continue to hold no weight, as the same can be said of dragons, or winged angels, or time travel..

There is no paradox. I am simply saying that atheists did think God, because they would have had to before they decided they don't believe in God.

3DAC6A50-E528-4501-A8CF-4375F5208431.jpeg
3DAC6A50-E528-4501-A8CF-4375F5208431.jpeg (49.73 KiB) Viewed 689 times

noun: atheist; plural noun: atheists
    a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
    "he is a committed atheist"

..or ‘lacks belief’, therefore there is nothing to think about if the person was initially born lacking belief in a/any god. I’ve talked to such people, they have no concept of what (a) god may be or what they even think god is.. I don’t think they care as much as you seem to.

MagsJ wrote: because your words continue to hold no weight, as the same can be said of dragons, or winged angels, or time travel..

Well, that's an interesting question, what can be said about dragons, winged angels or time travel?

..the exact same thing as what we’re saying about god here.. identical, in fact.

MagsJ wrote:Yes.. I had the former in mind,

The former wouldn't be atheists. Atheism describes a position on God, namely, that the person so denominated rejects God. A-, against, Theo, God (possibly), -ism, of the school of.

From earlier.. “a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.”, so that person may never have had a single thought about god during their entire existence.

Perhaps you are redefining what an atheist actually is.

MagsJ wrote:You say dislike, I’ll go with disbelieve..

I was referring specifically to dislike. I wasn't thinking disbelief and saying dislike. Many people dislike the thought God.

Lol, ok!

Then they have very strong views.. I think it’s to do with history and churches and religion in general.. crusades, conversions, genocides etc.

MagsJ wrote:Re. the former.. it must?

It must, in order to be perfect.

You said: The way he put it, because the very idea of a perfect being is formulatable, the proposition must be considered.

..in his mind, but not necessarily in anyone else’s.. he seems excited by the prospect of it, in his mind.. so must be considered, for him.

It seems that he is speaking from his own perspective, not speaking for All.

MagsJ wrote:Re. the latter.. benevolence ..as what good would the worlds’ ’figurehead' do without it.. hypothetically speaking.

Leibniz agrees.

..because he knows that all/only the best gods are benevolent.. hypothetically speaking, of course. ;)
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. ~MagsJ

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something important at some point in time.. Huh!? ~MagsJ

You’re suggestions and I just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a very bad DJ ~MagsJ

Examine what is said, not him who speaks ~Arab proverb

aes Sanātana Dharma Pali: the eternal way ~it should not be rigid, but inclusive of the best of all knowledge for the sake of Ṛta.. which is endless.
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 25056
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: something from nothing or always something

Postby Meno_ » Thu Jun 23, 2022 1:25 am

iambiguous wrote:
Meno_ wrote:That would require resources not yet available to me2know.
For that reason alone I was tempted to change my reel name2AI.


But, resisted that urge as quite redundant and totally absurd.

As of yet.


Well, if the something we are a part of now did come out of nothing at all, who could ever have guessed it would include exchanges like this?

It may well not be God alone that works in mysterious ways!! :o




True.


Anyone with God-Consciousness can assume the level of realization needed to clarify that mystery!

But than, strangely It will again be sealed.


However that Sign and It's delivery , certainty may be inferred, unless deliberately excluding the message.
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13270
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: something from nothing or always something

Postby MagsJ » Thu Jun 23, 2022 1:36 am

origami wrote:
MagsJ wrote:Re. the latter.. benevolence ..as what good would the worlds’ ’figurehead' do without it.. hypothetically speaking.

Leibniz agrees.

Does he now..!

What would constitute benevolence on the scale of a perfect being would be a different matter, and possibly a much more interesting one.

..it is.. what are your thoughts on that?
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. ~MagsJ

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something important at some point in time.. Huh!? ~MagsJ

You’re suggestions and I just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a very bad DJ ~MagsJ

Examine what is said, not him who speaks ~Arab proverb

aes Sanātana Dharma Pali: the eternal way ~it should not be rigid, but inclusive of the best of all knowledge for the sake of Ṛta.. which is endless.
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 25056
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: something from nothing or always something

Postby Meno_ » Thu Jun 23, 2022 4:15 am

Meno_ wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
Meno_ wrote:That would require resources not yet available to me2know.
For that reason alone I was tempted to change my reel name2AI.


But, resisted that urge as quite redundant and totally absurd.

As of yet.


Well, if the something we are a part of now did come out of nothing at all, who could ever have guessed it would include exchanges like this?

It may well not be God alone that works in mysterious ways!! :o




True.


Anyone with God-Consciousness can assume the level of realization needed to clarify that mystery!

But than, strangely It will again be sealed.


However that Sign and It's delivery , certainty may be inferred, unless deliberately excluding the message.



In fact I will tell You , how that 'Godspell' works

For some who seek contextual certainty for any type of 'proof', it's like they'll be missing the first fir the trees. And that is why, a literal ambiguity works wonders against any form of hidden types of transmission between actually perceived contexts.

Does that make any sense at all?
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13270
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: something from nothing or always something

Postby origami » Thu Jun 23, 2022 8:05 am

MagsJ wrote:
origami wrote:
MagsJ wrote:As much as I fully understand what you are stating here, I cannot agree.. the paradox ensues.. because your words continue to hold no weight, as the same can be said of dragons, or winged angels, or time travel..

There is no paradox. I am simply saying that atheists did think God, because they would have had to before they decided they don't believe in God.

3DAC6A50-E528-4501-A8CF-4375F5208431.jpeg

noun: atheist; plural noun: atheists
    a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
    "he is a committed atheist"

..or ‘lacks belief’, therefore there is nothing to think about if the person was initially born lacking belief in a/any god. I’ve talked to such people, they have no concept of what (a) god may be or what they even think god is.. I don’t think they care as much as you seem to.

MagsJ wrote: because your words continue to hold no weight, as the same can be said of dragons, or winged angels, or time travel..

Well, that's an interesting question, what can be said about dragons, winged angels or time travel?

..the exact same thing as what we’re saying about god here.. identical, in fact.

MagsJ wrote:Yes.. I had the former in mind,

The former wouldn't be atheists. Atheism describes a position on God, namely, that the person so denominated rejects God. A-, against, Theo, God (possibly), -ism, of the school of.

From earlier.. “a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.”, so that person may never have had a single thought about god during their entire existence.

Perhaps you are redefining what an atheist actually is.


Well, that's fine. You will go on pretending atheists never heard of God, I will allow you to keep pretending, and we will move on to more interesting things.


MagsJ wrote:Then they have very strong views..


I dunno about strong. I have known dislike to be a rather lukewarm feeling.

MagsJ wrote: I think it’s to do with history and churches and religion in general.. crusades, conversions, genocides etc.


But all these things say rather little about the thought itself, don't they?

Crusades, converstions, genocides... Who knows the contexts? And we know that the worst wars, conversions and genocides were committed by atheist entities. It seems to me to be rather a more personal thing to do with the thought itself.

MagsJ wrote:You said: The way he put it, because the very idea of a perfect being is formulatable, the proposition must be considered.

..in his mind, but not necessarily in anyone else’s.


Certainly in the mind of anybody who undestands what he means. Do you?

MagsJ wrote:..because he knows that all/only the best gods are benevolent.. hypothetically speaking, of course. ;)


I'm not really sure the logic went exactly like that.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

Re: something from nothing or always something

Postby origami » Thu Jun 23, 2022 8:09 am

MagsJ wrote:
because your words continue to hold no weight, as the same can be said of dragons, or winged angels, or time travel..

Well, that's an interesting question, what can be said about dragons, winged angels or time travel?

..the exact same thing as what we’re saying about god here.. identical, in fact.


This seems rather wanton. I don't think the exact same things can even be said about each of the things on the list.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

Re: something from nothing or always something

Postby origami » Thu Jun 23, 2022 8:12 am

MagsJ wrote:
origami wrote:
MagsJ wrote:Re. the latter.. benevolence ..as what good would the worlds’ ’figurehead' do without it.. hypothetically speaking.

Leibniz agrees.

Does he now..!


He dors.

MagsJ wrote:
What would constitute benevolence on the scale of a perfect being would be a different matter, and possibly a much more interesting one.

..it is.. what are your thoughts on that?


I have a lot of them. Maybe we can pick a specific narrowed path and go from there.

The first thing, what the OP was about. It means he would create the world, and at that, the best of all possible worlds.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

Re: something from nothing or always something

Postby MagsJ » Thu Jun 23, 2022 12:07 pm

origami wrote:
Well, that's fine. You will go on pretending atheists never heard of God, I will allow you to keep pretending, and we will move on to more interesting things.

MagsJ wrote:Then they have very strong views..

I dunno about strong. I have known dislike to be a rather lukewarm feeling.

MagsJ wrote: I think it’s to do with history and churches and religion in general.. crusades, conversions, genocides etc.

But all these things say rather little about the thought itself, don't they?

Crusades, converstions, genocides... Who knows the contexts? And we know that the worst wars, conversions and genocides were committed by atheist entities. It seems to me to be rather a more personal thing to do with the thought itself.

If the word 'god' means good, and we are all said to have god in our hearts.. hypothetically speaking, then maybe those whom dislike the word 'god' aren’t good.. maybe they don’t know what good even is.

MagsJ wrote:You said: The way he put it, because the very idea of a perfect being is formulatable, the proposition must be considered.

..in his mind, but not necessarily in anyone else’s.

Certainly in the mind of anybody who undestands what he means. Do you?

Of course I understand what he means, but that is not the point here, you’re cherry-picking at best.. I just simply obviously don’t agree with him, on that point.

MagsJ wrote:..because he knows that all/only the best gods are benevolent.. hypothetically speaking, of course. ;)

I'm not really sure the logic went exactly like that.

:lol:

That’s my logic, on how I think it went down. ;)

Leibniz sounds a bit fundamental, but that is obviously his affair only.. doesn’t mean we all have to think and feel the same way about the matter, as he. You do though, yes?
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. ~MagsJ

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something important at some point in time.. Huh!? ~MagsJ

You’re suggestions and I just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a very bad DJ ~MagsJ

Examine what is said, not him who speaks ~Arab proverb

aes Sanātana Dharma Pali: the eternal way ~it should not be rigid, but inclusive of the best of all knowledge for the sake of Ṛta.. which is endless.
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 25056
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: something from nothing or always something

Postby origami » Thu Jun 23, 2022 12:29 pm

MagsJ wrote:If the word 'god' means good, and we are all said to have god in our hearts.. hypothetically speaking, then maybe those whom dislike the word 'god' aren’t good.. maybe they don’t know what good even is.


That's a powerful point.

MagsJ wrote:Of course I understand what he means, but that is not the point here, you’re cherry-picking at best.. I just simply obviously don’t agree with him, on that point.


The point being that it's not just in his mind.

MagsJ wrote:Leibniz sounds a bit fundamental,


In the sense that he worries about fundament, I agree.

MagsJ wrote:doesn’t mean we all have to think and feel the same way about the matter, as he.


The question is less whether we do than whether we can.

MagsJ wrote:You do though, yes?


Do I feel what he felt? What I can say for sure is that following his train of thought makes me feel a certain way, and I am fairly convinced that was intentional, and further convinced that it was how he felt. He accounts for pretty much everything when he writes, including things like this. But he cannot account for more than what the thought is.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

Re: something from nothing or always something

Postby MagsJ » Thu Jun 23, 2022 12:47 pm

origami wrote:
MagsJ wrote:
origami wrote:Well, that's an interesting question, what can be said about dragons, winged angels or time travel?

..the exact same thing as what we’re saying about god here.. identical, in fact.

This seems rather wanton. I don't think the exact same things can even be said about each of the things on the list.

That’s your view, I’ll stick to mine.. though I’ve never been wanton.

origami wrote:
MagsJ wrote:
origami wrote:
MagsJ wrote: Re. the latter.. benevolence ..as what good would the worlds’ ’figurehead' do without it.. hypothetically speaking.

Leibniz agrees.

Does he now..!

He does.

MagsJ wrote:
What would constitute benevolence on the scale of a perfect being would be a different matter, and possibly a much more interesting one.

..it is.. what are your thoughts on that?

I have a lot of them. Maybe we can pick a specific narrowed path and go from there.

Only an all-encompassing benevolent being could create the best of all possible worlds. A starting point, for the discussion.

The first thing, what the OP was about. It means he would create the world, and at that, the best of all possible worlds.

I got that, from reading the OP.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. ~MagsJ

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something important at some point in time.. Huh!? ~MagsJ

You’re suggestions and I just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a very bad DJ ~MagsJ

Examine what is said, not him who speaks ~Arab proverb

aes Sanātana Dharma Pali: the eternal way ~it should not be rigid, but inclusive of the best of all knowledge for the sake of Ṛta.. which is endless.
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 25056
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: something from nothing or always something

Postby origami » Thu Jun 23, 2022 1:06 pm

MagsJ wrote:
origami wrote:
MagsJ wrote:..the exact same thing as what we’re saying about god here.. identical, in fact.

This seems rather wanton. I don't think the exact same things can even be said about each of the things on the list [*dragons, winged angels or time travel*].

That’s your view, I’ll stick to mine.. though I’ve never been wanton.


For instance, you can say that dragons have bodies, but you cannot say that time travel have bodies.

MagsJ wrote:Only an all-encompassing benevolent being could create the best of all possible worlds. A starting point, for the discussion.


I guess one thing that could be said here is that there then could only be one being that could create the best of all possible worlds.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

Re: something from nothing or always something

Postby iambiguous » Thu Jun 23, 2022 3:56 pm

From PN:


bahman wrote: So we wait for someone who is able to find a flaw in my argument.


Again:

If all one is interested in is noting a "flaw" in the language used to explain something, then the exchange can go on and on and on up in the didactic clouds that revolve around definitions and deductions.

But how is that connected to the physics, the chemistry and [with us] the biology of existence itself?


iambiguous wrote:In fact, contemplating this is so utterly mind-boggling, it's still the closest I can now come to God. Him/Her/It being one possible explanation for existence, right? Until, again, you start to wonder if God too popped into existence out of nothing at all or has always existed.


bahman wrote: God could not have always existed. That is regress too. God could not create the universe even if God popped into existence.


I don't doubt that "in your head" the logic of this is impeccable. But, again, I'll wait for the folks in the scientific community to get around to documenting it one way or the other on Nova or on the Science Channel.

Here for example: https://www.sciencechannel.com/show/how ... ks-science

Or here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/genres ... nology/all

iambiguous wrote:No, what I question here are the limitations of logic in regard to such things as morality and religion and those really big metaphysical questions.


bahman wrote: There is no limitation in logic. All sorts of knowledge are built on logic. Life in general and especially intelligent life is not possible without logic.


Indeed, in regard to physics and chemistry and geology and biology and and many other scientific disciplines, the precise relationship between words and worlds is astounding. Try getting astronauts on the moon or performing heart transplants or creating smart phones without it.

Instead, I focus more on the relationship between words and world in regard to things like morality and religion and the really, really big questions.

There we find any number of conflicting assumptions. And conflicting conclusions.

Right?

Only, sure, the objectivists among us refuse to accept that. They insist that how they think about these things is how all rational men and women are obligated to think about them in turn. Why? Because they provide us with arguments -- worlds of words -- up in the stratosphere of didactic intellectual exchanges in order to...to prove it.

iambiguous wrote:Logic revolves around the rules of language. But human beings themselves...where do they fit into the complete understanding of existence itself? How on Earth can we determine if the human brain is even capable of grasping that?


bahman wrote: Because we have the ability to think.


No, in my view, just because brain matter has acquired the ability to think -- given free will of course -- doesn't necessarily establish that thinking brains have the capacity to grasp how existence itself came into existence. Well, other than by way of arguing a conclusion into existence by arguing -- in a world of words -- that only your own premises count in establishing that.

That is what you are doing here, right?

iambiguous wrote:
Webster's dictionary: "a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration: the science of the formal principles of reasoning"

A priori and a posteriori, how would we go about validating what we think is logically true here? Again, empirically, materially, phenomenologically.

Mathematics, science, and philosophy all intertwined in the definitive explanation?


bahman wrote: Philosophy sits on top of mathematics and science.


Well, that settles that then.

bahman wrote: Does the world of words have any value to you? If not why do you bother with philosophy at all?


Because my main interest in philosophy revolves around how others close the gap between what they think is true "in their head" about things like morality and religion and the Big Questions and what they can demonstrate using the tools of philosophy -- the philosophical equivalent of the scientific method -- all others are obligated to believe in turn if they wish to be thought of as rational men and women.


bahman wrote: I am trying to fill the gaps.


And I'm all for anyone attempting to do that. Instead, the "flaw" in your conclusion is, in my view, the point I raise above about the limitations of logic that far out on the metaphysical limb.

Thus...

iambiguous wrote:But how is [your logic] connected to the physics, the chemistry and [with us] the biology of existence itself?

Though I'm the first to admit that my own speculations here seem able to be nothing more than my own "wild-ass guess".


bahman wrote: Everything starts with a guess. A guess could be right or wrong. It is through systematic thinking that we can find the trueness of a guess. In the end, we will solve this big puzzle.


More rather than less educated guesses always work for me.

I just doubt that the puzzle that is existence itself will be solved in our lifetimes.

Then the part where you have managed to think yourself into believing that the existence of "I" transcends death itself or, instead, that's it's oblivion...then all the way back to "star stuff".
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46394
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: something from nothing or always something

Postby Ecmandu » Thu Jun 23, 2022 4:05 pm

Is it moral or immoral to think existence exists and that we’re writing and responding to posts?

Dasein right?

How do you solve that problem?

I must have a “condition”, unless of course I’m wrong.
The purpose of life is to give everyone individually what they always want at the expense of no being - forever.

The biggest problem of life is the, “hey, I don’t want this to be happening” problem for everyone.

Welcome to thinking.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 16011
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am
Location: Duh. Existence. I'm sure that'd be wrong on SAT's!

Re: something from nothing or always something

Postby iambiguous » Thu Jun 23, 2022 4:52 pm

Ecmandu wrote:Is it moral or immoral to think existence exists and that we’re writing and responding to posts?

Dasein right?

How do you solve that problem?

I must have a “condition”, unless of course I’m wrong.


Great! Now all the thread needs is for Pedro I Rengel to return to bring it back around to The Corner!! #-o
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46394
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: something from nothing or always something

Postby Meno_ » Thu Jun 23, 2022 5:06 pm

And that a sufficient reason can surface, for that to occur, with the Heidegger's later resolution to the problem of Dasein.

I meno, under the penalty of some law that can be found somewhere, faithfully swear to be able to reason that out, to the best of my knowledge, I swear to God.
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13270
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: something from nothing or always something

Postby iambiguous » Thu Jun 23, 2022 5:11 pm

Meno_ wrote:And that a sufficient reason can surface, for that to occur, with the Heidegger's later resolution to the problem of Dasein.

I meno, under the penalty of some law that can be found somewhere, faithfully swear to be able to reason that out, to the best of my knowledge, I swear to God.


Note to Pedro:

Top this, my friend!! 8)
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46394
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: something from nothing or always something

Postby origami » Thu Jun 23, 2022 5:34 pm

origami wrote:
MagsJ wrote:Only an all-encompassing benevolent being could create the best of all possible worlds. A starting point, for the discussion.


I guess one thing that could be said here is that there then could only be one being that could create the best of all possible worlds.


To be honest, however, I find this less interesting than the implications of a world created by a perfect being (if you permit, assuming into perfection both benevolence and all-encompassingness).

What does the best of all possible worlds entail?

If you could, rather than wondering whether we believe it or not, we simply assume it is the case, a perfect being exists and created this world, the best of all possible worlds. It is fact. What then about this world?
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

Re: something from nothing or always something

Postby Meno_ » Thu Jun 23, 2022 5:55 pm

This world entails a Second.
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13270
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: something from nothing or always something

Postby Meno_ » Thu Jun 23, 2022 6:34 pm

Proof:


"Through deconstruction, Derrida aims to erase the boundary between binary oppositions—and to do so in such a way that the hierarchy implied by the oppositions is thrown into question. Although its ultimate aim may be to criticize Western logic, deconstruction arose as a response to structuralism and formalism."

Or a destructuristic deconstruction of Heidegger's 'das man'

Can this explanation descend to the level of Kantian critique of reason upon which a secondary critique of judgment be raised?

Not necessarily, but certainly entailing it's ethnoeuropean interpretation.
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13270
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: something from nothing or always something

Postby Meno_ » Thu Jun 23, 2022 6:59 pm

And frankly, there is no way Jose or wrangle could assume so tangentially and unequivocally as Peter shows. by historical necessity;
to literally ground and bring down to reality the events that prove- in themselves- for others, that by virtue of that validation - no subsequent members should or could be excluded.( from even a primordial participation.
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13270
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: something from nothing or always something

Postby MagsJ » Thu Jun 23, 2022 9:14 pm

origami wrote:
MagsJ wrote:If the word 'god' means good, and we are all said to have god in our hearts.. hypothetically speaking, then maybe those whom dislike the word 'god' aren’t good.. maybe they don’t know what good even is.

That's a powerful point.

..not an impossibility, but could be a probability.. considering.

MagsJ wrote:Of course I understand what he means, but that is not the point here, you’re cherry-picking at best.. I just simply obviously don’t agree with him, on that point.

The point being that it's not just in his mind.

..is it also in his heart and in his soul?

MagsJ wrote:Leibniz sounds a bit fundamental,

In the sense that he worries about fundament, I agree.

That was his choice, to make..

MagsJ wrote:doesn’t mean we all have to think and feel the same way about the matter, as he.

The question is less whether we do than whether we can.
MagsJ wrote:You do though, yes?

Do I feel what he felt? What I can say for sure is that following his train of thought makes me feel a certain way, and I am fairly convinced that was intentional, and further convinced that it was how he felt. He accounts for pretty much everything when he writes, including things like this. But he cannot account for more than what the thought is.

..just how close did he get, in resolving Descartes’ open proof to the objection that God does not exist because God cannot exist.

This close? He bolsters the ontological proof by grounding the demonstration for God’s actuality in a demonstration of God’s possibility.

Any further?
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. ~MagsJ

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something important at some point in time.. Huh!? ~MagsJ

You’re suggestions and I just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a very bad DJ ~MagsJ

Examine what is said, not him who speaks ~Arab proverb

aes Sanātana Dharma Pali: the eternal way ~it should not be rigid, but inclusive of the best of all knowledge for the sake of Ṛta.. which is endless.
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 25056
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: something from nothing or always something

Postby MagsJ » Thu Jun 23, 2022 9:30 pm

origami wrote:
origami wrote:
MagsJ wrote:Only an all-encompassing benevolent being could create the best of all possible worlds. A starting point, for the discussion.

I guess one thing that could be said here is that there then could only be one being that could create the best of all possible worlds.

To be honest, however, I find this less interesting than the implications of a world created by a perfect being (if you permit, assuming into perfection both benevolence and all-encompassingness).

What does the best of all possible worlds entail?

If you could, rather than wondering whether we believe it or not, we simply assume it is the case, a perfect being exists and created this world, the best of all possible worlds. It is fact. What then about this world?

I’m sure such places exist on Earth.. out of the way idyllic-islands and inland-townlets, but probably not big-city life.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. ~MagsJ

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something important at some point in time.. Huh!? ~MagsJ

You’re suggestions and I just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a very bad DJ ~MagsJ

Examine what is said, not him who speaks ~Arab proverb

aes Sanātana Dharma Pali: the eternal way ~it should not be rigid, but inclusive of the best of all knowledge for the sake of Ṛta.. which is endless.
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 25056
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: something from nothing or always something

Postby Meno_ » Thu Jun 23, 2022 9:45 pm

Sure the probability sinks near to nil, but a certain possibility? near to absolute that at least 1 or two minimally can support ( ground) the rest.

Hercules was not merely a myth, but if he was all that he was, way back when, one could imagine the simulation to be much manifelt6.


The island cities of the ancients may have an archaically compressed retro sustained image, but they could be imagined their constructions to become volumes of simulated post modern actuality, islands in the stream.



https://youtu.be/iFIkpFbgExA
Last edited by Meno_ on Thu Jun 23, 2022 10:20 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13270
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

PreviousNext

Return to Science, Technology, and Math



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users