Do we have to say possible worlds exist concretely?

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
User avatar
erk
New Trial Member
Posts: 7
Joined: December 10th, 2017, 7:54 am

Do we have to say possible worlds exist concretely?

Post by erk » December 18th, 2017, 1:25 pm

A theory is ontologically committed to those entities which must exist in order for the theory to work.

Possible worlds are explanatory tools used to explain modal statements such as "possibility" "necessity" and "contingency."

These modal statements cannot be explained in any other way; without possible worlds we have to just take them as primitive.
So the existence of possible worlds is necessary for the explanation of these terms.

Does this mean we're ontologically committed to the existence (and mind-independence) of possible worlds?

Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: Do we have to say possible worlds exist concretely?

Post by Namelesss » December 19th, 2017, 7:51 pm

erk wrote:
December 18th, 2017, 1:25 pm
Does this mean we're ontologically committed to the existence (and mind-independence) of possible worlds?
Doesn't need to be all that complicated/jargonistic, observe;

Everything exists!

No thing exists that is Mind independent! - QM

Wayne92587
Posts: 1756
Joined: January 27th, 2012, 9:32 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Hermese Trismegistus

Re: Do we have to say possible worlds exist concretely?

Post by Wayne92587 » December 20th, 2017, 6:25 am

The primary World of Reality is the one that we experience.
The second World of Reality being an Illusion, a misconception of the Truth.
The difficulty in understanding, is that an Illusion is a Reality.

Suffering born of Illusion is an affect, Unnecessary, Suffering born of cause and effect being necessary.

Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: Do we have to say possible worlds exist concretely?

Post by Namelesss » December 20th, 2017, 6:33 am

Wayne92587 wrote:
December 20th, 2017, 6:25 am
Suffering born of Illusion is an affect, Unnecessary, Suffering born of cause and effect being necessary.
Perhaps... if 'cause' and 'effect' weren't the illusion.

Wayne92587
Posts: 1756
Joined: January 27th, 2012, 9:32 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Hermese Trismegistus

Re: Do we have to say possible worlds exist concretely?

Post by Wayne92587 » December 20th, 2017, 2:30 pm

So true!

The World of today is mostly Reality with whole lot of Illusion thrown in.
The synonym thrown; to confuse.
Thrown; to be put on or off hastily. carelessly

User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 1959
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Do we have to say possible worlds exist concretely?

Post by Hereandnow » December 20th, 2017, 2:54 pm

I wonder, Wayne92587 or Nameless, if you could help me out: What is the basis for calling something an illusion? Free of jargon, that is.

Wayne92587
Posts: 1756
Joined: January 27th, 2012, 9:32 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Hermese Trismegistus

Re: Do we have to say possible worlds exist concretely?

Post by Wayne92587 » December 20th, 2017, 6:28 pm

An Illusion is the knowledge of a Reality that has a duel quality.

An Illusion is a priori knowledge of Reality, absolutely Bad knowledge that is mistaken to be absolutely Good Knowledge.

An Illusion is born of the Rational Mind, is a Rationalization, is duplicitous,.

An Illusion is a creation, is an original product of the mind.

Look up the word rationalization and you will get a better understanding of Illusion.

An Illusion can not exist if not mistaken to be a Reality.

If not mistaken to be a Reality an Illusion is just so much, babble, gibberish.

An Illusion is born of guile-fullness, is duplicitous, deceptive, is a lie.
An Illusion the knowledge of a Reality that can not be experience.

An Illusion is Absolutely Bad knowledge, can not, does not even exist as a Illusion, unless mistaken to be a Reality. Absolutely Good knowledge.

To say that Good can not exist without Evil, is an Illusion, is a Reality, as long as your are Talking about priori Reality which can not be experienced, has a dual quality, Absolutely Bad Knowledge mistaken to be Absolutely Good Knowledge, is a creation, is an original product of the Mind, the Rational Mind, Rationalization, Illusion.

In the story of Eve in the Garden, Eve was beguiled, attained Absolutely Bad Knowledge, having a duel quality, the knowledge of Good and Evil, Priori Knowledge being gleaned from a single source.

Rationalization, the Knowledge of Good and Evil, being a creation, an original product of the Mind, the Rational Mind.

Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: Do we have to say possible worlds exist concretely?

Post by Namelesss » December 20th, 2017, 6:59 pm

Hereandnow wrote:
December 20th, 2017, 2:54 pm
I wonder, Wayne92587 or Nameless, if you could help me out: What is the basis for calling something an illusion? Free of jargon, that is.
When I use the term 'illusion', it is in reference to the 'fact' that the world that we perceive at any moment is not an accurate representation of Universal Reality.
The 'world' that exists in/as 'thoughts' is necessarily a 'duality'. That is the illusion, that Reality really is a 'duality'.
Perhaps a 'delusion' if one actually 'believes' the thoughts/ego to be an accurate representation, and the thoughts of others that see differently, are 'wrong'. All 'illusion'.
Actually, all Reality is, in that nature, an illusion, 'Mindstuff', 'information waves' that we, like monitors, reflect as 'The World' (tm), 'make-believe'.
All that can ever be perceived (all that exists) is the One Reality/Truth, it just is not like the unique bit that we can, at any moment, perceive.
Lots of words... "To speak is to lie!" Words are thought are duality, the tool used to Know/experience Our Monality.

User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 1959
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Do we have to say possible worlds exist concretely?

Post by Hereandnow » December 21st, 2017, 4:10 pm

Nameless:
"To speak is to lie!"
Now that is a good one. The others, well, too thick, like a jungle of questions attached to each.

But to speak is to lie. It's simple and invites inquiry: what is it about speaking that is lying? Is there something about language itself that carries the lie such that even in these words I write, I am putting illusion into play? To talk about lying implies that there is some (hopefully unproblematic) assumption regarding truth telling, otherwise 'lying' would make no sense at all, as with an up without a down. So, what is it that is in this implicit claim about what is true, real, non-illusory; some sort of indubitable bedrock of truth telling? Is it altogether wrong to speak of such a bedrock? Some say it is. If it is, then where does that put any claim about what is illusory? If not, then what is it and how do you confirm it to be foundational?

User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 1959
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Do we have to say possible worlds exist concretely?

Post by Hereandnow » December 21st, 2017, 4:17 pm

Of course, I did miss one. There is such a thing as a performative contradiction, as in "I am dead." You can't be dead and declare to be so. Here, if language is a inherently illusory, that is, lying, then the saying so itself must be a lie. This comes down to, to speak is to lie, therefore, given that i am speaking in saying so, it must be the case that to, 'it is not the case that to speak is to lie.'

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7217
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Do we have to say possible worlds exist concretely?

Post by Greta » December 21st, 2017, 6:17 pm

Our sensory filtering renders our thoughts and perceptions incomplete. Is the incomplete necessarily illusory? How directly are our "illusions" based on external reality?

If I met any of you people in person, what is the difference between me perceiving you as a human or perceiving you as a Reptilian infiltrator in disguise? Each is technically an "illusion", as per the thread's usage. Should we parse these "illusions" or consider them to be equally true?

Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: Do we have to say possible worlds exist concretely?

Post by Namelesss » December 21st, 2017, 8:58 pm

Hereandnow wrote:
December 21st, 2017, 4:10 pm
Nameless:
"To speak is to lie!"
Now that is a good one. The others, well, too thick, like a jungle of questions attached to each.
Yes, a jungle of questions for someone who reads it, finds meaning, and can formulate the questions.
I offer the 'distillate' that might have taken 'centuries' at which to arrive, Occam's razor and all that trims a 'bible' into a haiku!
I am always happy to answer questions/elucidate and help with blazing trails through that 'jungle'. *__-
But to speak is to lie. It's simple and invites inquiry: what is it about speaking that is lying?
Sure, language is 'thought/ego'.
Thought/ego/language is predicated on 'duality'; this, not that. A word, for instance, means 'this', not that. Etc.
But ego/duality is only a tool (the conditional, contextual) by which we can Know/experience the ultimate Reality of the One (unconditional, non-contextual, transcendental, unlimited, indefinable, Universal...), Omni- Self!!
Schizophrenia is the fragmentation of that which is One.
So; if we 'believe' thoughts/feelings (feelings are thoughts), we have entered insanity. If we believe that the tool by which Reality/Self is Known is (ultimate) Reality, we err. (Yet even that erring, false, wrong, lying... thought, is an inherent (conditional) feature of Reality, Our unconditional Omni- nature.
Thus the 'lie' aspect of all thought/ego', and the language that expresses it.
If we take all as metaphor, everything perceived, from rocks at our feet to daydreams, we do well.
Literalists remain clueless, but the 'superficial' must also be Known for Us to be Omni-scient!
Is there something about language itself that carries the lie such that even in these words I write, I am putting illusion into play? To talk about lying implies that there is some (hopefully unproblematic) assumption regarding truth telling, otherwise 'lying' would make no sense at all, as with an up without a down. So, what is it that is in this implicit claim about what is true, real, non-illusory; some sort of indubitable bedrock of truth telling? Is it altogether wrong to speak of such a bedrock? Some say it is. If it is, then where does that put any claim about what is illusory? If not, then what is it and how do you confirm it to be foundational?
As I have mentioned, (t)here exists One Universal Consciousness (that peeks from all eyes).
We are all unique Perspectives of the One unchanging, ALL inclusive Consciousness/Reality/Truth... Universe.
When we ignore all the Perspectives of the One Truth but our own, and fall into the toxic Aristotelian notion of 'either/or', 'right' or 'wrong', in such limited truncated context, we can have 'true' and 'false'.
2+2=4 is true only in very limited context, such as only in the base ten system. In a base three system, 2+2=4 would be a false statement.
Without knowing the context, the statement is both true and false and maybe, etc... all at the same time.
Opposite Perspective APPEAR as conflict, problematic, lies...

Consider the implications and meaning of Guinon's quote;

"Every kind of partial and transitory disequilibrium must perforce contribute towards the great equilibrium of the whole!" - Rene' Guenon

Words/thoughts present the 'apparent' "partial and transitory disequilibrium"; dualism, because we do not see the larger picture, the "equilibrium of the whole".
Understanding/Knowing of the Perfection/Balance, at any moment of existence, of the Universe, one is less likely to fall for 'appearances' presented by the tool by which Self! is Known.

"The complete Universe (Reality/Truth/God/'Self!'/Tao/Brahman... or any feature herein...) can be completely defined/described as the synchronous sum-total of all Perspectives!" - n
ALL INCLUSIVE!!!

tat tvam asi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tat_Tvam_Asi)

Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: Do we have to say possible worlds exist concretely?

Post by Namelesss » December 21st, 2017, 9:09 pm

Greta wrote:
December 21st, 2017, 6:17 pm
Our sensory filtering renders our thoughts and perceptions incomplete. Is the incomplete necessarily illusory? How directly are our "illusions" based on external reality?

If I met any of you people in person, what is the difference between me perceiving you as a human or perceiving you as a Reptilian infiltrator in disguise? Each is technically an "illusion", as per the thread's usage. Should we parse these "illusions" or consider them to be equally true?
All that is ever perceived, can only be the One all inclusive Truth/Reality!
To parse is to lie! *__-
It can be fun, can be informative... but is never to be 'believed'!
If you perceive me as a human, that just means that; from your momentary Perspective, the bit of Reality that you perceive as me is, in your perceived thoughts, human.
If you perceive me as a reptilian, that just means that; from your momentary Perspective, the bit of Reality that you perceive as me is, in your perceived thoughts, a reptilian.
There is nothing that follows; I Am that I Am/We Are that We Are! Not I am a this or that, you perceive me as a 'this' or 'that'.
See; E-Prime;

TOWARD UNDERSTANDING E -PRIME
Robert Anton Wilson
http://www.nobeliefs.com/eprime.htm

E-Prime Tutorial
http://www.angelfire.com/nd/danscorpio/ep2.html/

The notion of 'true' perception vs 'false' is irrelevant in the larger picture.
All that is to be perceived, is (ultimately) the One all inclusive Truth! *__-

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7217
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Do we have to say possible worlds exist concretely?

Post by Greta » December 21st, 2017, 9:21 pm

Namelesss wrote:
December 21st, 2017, 9:09 pm
Greta wrote:
December 21st, 2017, 6:17 pm
Our sensory filtering renders our thoughts and perceptions incomplete. Is the incomplete necessarily illusory? How directly are our "illusions" based on external reality?

If I met any of you people in person, what is the difference between me perceiving you as a human or perceiving you as a Reptilian infiltrator in disguise? Each is technically an "illusion", as per the thread's usage. Should we parse these "illusions" or consider them to be equally true?
All that is ever perceived, can only be the One all inclusive Truth/Reality!
To parse is to lie! *__-
Yet to not parse is to misrepresent. One would think that the size of the lie or misrepresentation matters.

I understand that you are aiming to be "above" all this, and there is no doubt that we are effectively Flatlanders living in a 3D realm on the surface of an oblate spheroid that is smoother than a billiard ball. In that we are the same. But reality does not exist only from the cosmic perspective; it is fractal in nature, and each layer is just as real as any other.

But to dismiss everything as equally illusory is to dismiss everything per se, in which we are stuck in a pointless, illusory life that was never worth living in the first place. Why go through all that if everything is just illusory, and thus pointless and meaningless? Such a view can only lead to antinatalism, the notion that it would be better for everyone if life never happened. I consider that view to be more of an expression of dissatisfaction with life than a valid observation, which is how I see the "all is illusion" wholesale dismissal of modernism.

Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: Do we have to say possible worlds exist concretely?

Post by Namelesss » December 21st, 2017, 9:40 pm

Greta wrote:
December 21st, 2017, 9:21 pm
Namelesss wrote:
December 21st, 2017, 9:09 pm

All that is ever perceived, can only be the One all inclusive Truth/Reality!
To parse is to lie! *__-
Yet to not parse is to misrepresent. One would think that the size of the lie or misrepresentation matters.
Of course it 'matters' (all 'mattering/meaning' existing in the thoughts/ego of the beholder) in the limited contexts in which we spend what we imagine to be our lives.
I understand that you are aiming to be "above" all this,

I cannot go shopping without playing the ego game, nor can I write these things to you without playibng the ego/thought game.
I understand the nature of the game, I Know better.
Not 'aiming' for anything.

and there is no doubt that we are effectively Flatlanders living in a 3D realm on the surface of an oblate spheroid that is smoother than a billiard ball. In that we are the same. But reality does not exist only from the cosmic perspective; it is fractal in nature, and each layer
is just as real as any other.

Reality/Truth is ALL inclusive, though explaining that to your math teacher after missing an equation won't help.
All subsets that comprise the One Set are 'conditional'. That is how we generally experience what we think of as 'life'!
But to dismiss everything as equally illusory is to dismiss everything per se, in which we are stuck in a pointless, illusory life that was never worth living in the first place.

Nope!
Knowing that this apple is essentially some 'information waves/Mindstuff', not 'material' at all, Knowing that the weight is more perceived 'information waves', that the 'smell' and 'texture' and 'taste' and 'fart, and the whole recycle thing, etc... is just more 'information waves perceived, seems not to interfere with the feelings of joy and gratitude and 'fullness'/relief perceived!
I can enjoy a movie like anyone else, laugh and weep, but, I do understand it's 'illusory' nature.

Much suffering is associated with those who do not understand the nature of their thoughts/ego and Reality!
Ask Buddha! *__-

Post Reply