Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect

[philosopher19]

If your mind is limited and the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent god's mind is not, then you cannot know whether something that appears absurd to your mind, is not absurd in this god's mind. You agree that your knowledge is limited, so you cannot act as if you really knew all.

My mind being limited, does not mean that my mind has access to 0 semantics or truths. The limits of my mind are shown when I don't know if there as beings with a 10th sense or not. Or when I don't fully know what's on Mars. These are unknowns. They are not known absurdities. I know that a triangle is a three-sided shape. God Knows this too. God does not Know a four-sided triangle because such a thing is a known absurdity. I know it. God Knows it. God Knows what's fully on Mars, or whether beings with a 10th sense exist or not. I don't.

I already answered and gave an argument about that. I explained that there's a knowledge in the present (A) about a knowledge to be had in the future (B), remember?

You did not word it this way. I can better address it this way. In your own words, "if there's a knowledge in the present (A) about a knowledge to be had in the future (B)", then it follows that B is contingent on (A). We agree on this. But you have not commented on the following:

Provided that x's choice is absolutely not contingent on anything else (so it is not contingent on (A)), when is x's choice knowledge to be had? After it is made, or before it is made?

We are all contingent on God. God Is Self-Sufficient. Only God is Truly Free. We're all free within the meaningful limits that God Has Determined for us. No meaningful limits were decided for God. God/Existence just Is Perfect, Infinite etc. Always has been, always will be.

You're saying you know exactly what is absurd in the infinite mind of the omniscient, omnipotent deity, but you said yourself you couldn't know.

There are thing that are unknown to me. I don't know if a 10th sense is a potentiality of Existence/God, or an absurdity (something that can't exist). God Knows whether's it's an absurdity or not. I don't. I know a four-sided triangle is an absurdity. I know that God Knows this. God Knows that I know that God Knows this.

You're even claiming that there are things impossible for this deity to do, so you're actually denying its omnipotence, too. For omnipotence to be possible, anything deemed absurd by a non-omnipotent, non-omniscient being, can only be absurd because the omnipotent being decided that it were absurd for those beings.

No. Omnipotence = being able to do all that is doable. It does not mean being able to be better than perfect (God), or being able to create a four sided triangle. Such suggestions are meaningless. We cannot meaningfully describe them as being doable things, just as we cannot meaningfully describe a square as being three-sided or triangular. Meaningless things are irrelevant to Omnipotence. They are irrelevant to Existence/God.

[Count Lucanor]

If your mind is limited and the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent god's mind is not, then you cannot know whether something that appears absurd to your mind, is not absurd in this god's mind. You agree that your knowledge is limited, so you cannot act as if you really knew all.

My mind being limited, does not mean that my mind has access to 0 semantics or truths.

You treat semantics and truths as things independent of minds, to which they can then get access to, but that is obviously false. It's a classic hypostatization.

The limits of my mind are shown when I don't know if there as beings with a 10th sense or not. Or when I don't fully know what's on Mars. These are unknowns. They are not known absurdities. I know that a triangle is a three-sided shape. God Knows this too. God does not Know a four-sided triangle because such a thing is a known absurdity. I know it. God Knows it. God Knows what's fully on Mars, or whether beings with a 10th sense exist or not. I don't.

You fail to show how the limits of your mind apply to the supreme being's mind. You just make the jump: "it works this way in my mind, it must work in the supreme being's mind, too". The reason, supposedly, is because the supreme being is bound to the same rules as you. That's an interesting take for someone talking about an omnipotent supreme being. Also, this contradicts your own statement that the mind of this god is different than yours.

I already answered and gave an argument about that. I explained that there's a knowledge in the present (A) about a knowledge to be had in the future (B), remember?

You did not word it this way.

I surely did:

I will choose between chocolate and vanilla. I know now that this selection will be witnessed in the future and become part of the knowledge of those who witness it, including myself. We know for certain that it will be known in the future, that is, knowledge to be had. So there's a knowledge in the present (A) about a knowledge to be had in the future (B). That's for every thinking, personal being.

I can better address it this way. In your own words, "if there's a knowledge in the present (A) about a knowledge to be had in the future (B)", then it follows that B is contingent on (A). We agree on this. But you have not commented on the following:

Provided that x's choice is absolutely not contingent on anything else (so it is not contingent on (A)), when is x's choice knowledge to be had? After it is made, or before it is made?

As I said a zillion times: once an experience occurs it will be known (B). It is knowledge to be had in the future. You cannot deny this. What is to be known? The choice!!! And it also happens that before that experience occurs, the agent knows (A) in the present that it will acquire B (whatever choice it turns out to be). B is a variable that only will be solved once the choice is made. All this works perfectly fine for all thinking beings, which depend on the future to arrive in order to know what happens, but becomes problematic for the omnipotent, omniscient being that cannot require the future to arrive to solve the variables.

There are thing that are unknown to me. I don't know if a 10th sense is a potentiality of Existence/God, or an absurdity (something that can't exist). God Knows whether's it's an absurdity or not. I don't. I know a four-sided triangle is an absurdity. I know that God Knows this. God Knows that I know that God Knows this.

Since you have acknowledged that you don't know everything, you are forced to allow the possibility that whatever your beliefs are about this god's mind, are wrong. However, you are denying that possibility and asserting that you actually know all there is to know about everything, including this god's mind. This is undoubtedly a blatant contradiction.

You're even claiming that there are things impossible for this deity to do, so you're actually denying its omnipotence, too. For omnipotence to be possible, anything deemed absurd by a non-omnipotent, non-omniscient being, can only be absurd because the omnipotent being decided that it were absurd for those beings.

No. Omnipotence = being able to do all that is doable.

That is a circular statement: "being able to do all that is being able to do". It doesn't work. Omnipotence actually implies being able to do everything, without any limits.

[Steve3007]

Superposition in QM is a phenomenon of real life that contradicts an analytical statement "one thing can only be in one place at a time".

I really don't think anybody will get anywhere in a conversation about this kind of thing until they've first agreed what constitutes a self-contradictory statement. In my experience, you won't get that agreement from philosopher19. But, for what it's worth, my take on this one is this:

If the statement "one thing can be in more than one location at a time" really was self-contradictory then it would be of no use in QM or anything else. But the question of whether it is, in fact, self-contradictory obviously hangs on the definition of the term "one thing". If it means "a single object occupying a single location" then obviously the statement is self-contradictory. If not, then it isn't. If you claim that QM demonstrates the existence of single things being in more than one place at the same time then you're simply defining the term "single thing" in that context.

To be self-contradictory, a statement must simultaneously assert something and its opposite. That's why "something is nothing" is self-contradictory (because by definition something is not nothing) but "something can come from nothing" is not (because either "can come from" is ill-defined or because it means "at one time there was nothing and at a later time there was something").

[NickGaspar]

Superposition in QM is a phenomenon of real life that contradicts an analytical statement "one thing can only be in one place at a time".

I really don't think anybody will get anywhere in a conversation about this kind of thing until they've first agreed what constitutes a self-contradictory statement. In my experience, you won't get that agreement from philosopher19. But, for what it's worth, my take on this one is this:

If the statement "one thing can be in more than one location at a time" really was self-contradictory then it would be of no use in QM or anything else. But the question of whether it is, in fact, self-contradictory obviously hangs on the definition of the term "one thing". If it means "a single object occupying a single location" then obviously the statement is self-contradictory. If not, then it isn't. If you claim that QM demonstrates the existence of single things being in more than one place at the same time then you're simply defining the term "single thing" in that context.

To be self-contradictory, a statement must simultaneously assert something and its opposite. That's why "something is nothing" is self-contradictory (because by definition something is not nothing) but "something can come from nothing" is not (because either "can come from" is ill-defined or because it means "at one time there was nothing and at a later time there was something").

-"If the statement "one thing can be in more than one location at a time" really was self-contradictory then it would be of no use in QM or anything else"

-Correct.

-"But the question of whether it is, in fact, self-contradictory obviously hangs on the definition of the term "one thing".

-Correct

-If it means "a single object occupying a single location" then obviously the statement is self-contradictory. If not, then it isn't

.
-Agreed

-If you claim that QM demonstrates the existence of single things being in more than one place at the same time then you're simply defining the term "single thing" in that context.

-We dont know. As Richard Feynman stated "if you thing you understand QM, you don't understand QM.". Then there is this problem called Observation Objectivity Collapse. Our observations in QM are not really "observations"of a particle. Essentially we crash fermions and bozons and we record the aftermath. So we are interfering with the system and that is a problem. Then its the problem of "single thing". Particles are not things but energetic glitches in fields. We can not really have a definite answer on what's going on in such small scales so its really a risk to assume that the law of identity persists as an absolute rule or breaks down in extreme scales.
So I am not promoting any specific definition, I just say that we don't have enough evidence to assume the absolute validity of the claim.

-"To be self-contradictory, a statement must simultaneously assert something and its opposite."

-That's why "something is nothing" is self-contradictory (because by definition something is not nothing) but "something can come from nothing" is not (because either "can come from" is ill-defined or because it means "at one time there was nothing and at a later time there was something").

-I agree. Those are two different statements and only the first man is self contradictory (for sure).
The problem I find with the statement "something can not come from nothing" is the absolute concept of "nothing". The sentence states that before something....there "was" nothing! What does it mean for nothing to be(was)..? How can nothing be a state of......"existence."(being before something...and with what qualities or absence of qualities).

[philosopher19]

You treat semantics and truths as things independent of minds, to which they can then get access to, but that is obviously false. It's a classic hypostatization.

Do our minds create the semantics that they are aware of independently of Reality, or is Reality and Its Nature responsible for ALL the semantics that we have access to?

You fail to show how the limits of your mind apply to the supreme being's mind. You just make the jump: "it works this way in my mind, it must work in the supreme being's mind, too". The reason, supposedly, is because the supreme being is bound to the same rules as you. That's an interesting take for someone talking about an omnipotent supreme being. Also, this contradicts your own statement that the mind of this god is different than yours.

You fail to see that we are a part of Reality (which I call Existence/God/Truth). There is only one Existence or true reality that all other existents or realities are rooted in. It is responsible for semantics being the way they are. In other words, Reality is responsible for meanings meaning what they mean. Reality dictates what is Real, possible, and absurd. We have some knowledge of Reality. For example we know that Reality/Existence is such that four-sided triangles are absurd. No existing being or real being will believe in a four-sided triangle. I make the jump from "I clearly and distinctly recognise it's absurd", to "all other beings will either not recognise it to be absurd too, or they will simply not be focused on what I am focused." This is a wholly justified jump. Rejecting is absurd. Rejecting it is to say "I don't know how your mind works, so no meaningful conversation can take place between you and I". Yet this is not Reality. This is not true of Existence. There aren't two set of semantics that we work with. There aren't two different Existence's or Realities. There are multiple realities (like dreams), but they are all rooted in the true reality (which I call Reality/God/Existence/Truth/the Perfect).

That is a circular statement: "being able to do all that is being able to do". It doesn't work. Omnipotence actually implies being able to do everything, without any limits.

I don't know how else to convey this to you. You cannot bring absurdities into a meaningful discussion and treat them as rational/meaningful objections when they are in fact absurdities.

Omnipotence = being able to do all that is doable (this is meaningful/rational) Omnipotence = being able to create round squares and become non-omnipotent as well as fhjkgsj and any other thing (this is absurd). Triangle = a three-sided shape (this is meaningful/rational/semantically consistent) Triangle = that which is round and triangular (this is absurd/meaningless/semantically inconsistent/not understandable/not true of Existence/false of Existence/false/wrong/irrational/bad/unreasonable)

Since you have acknowledged that you don't know everything, you are forced to allow the possibility that whatever your beliefs are about this god's mind, are wrong.

Not knowing everything is not the same as not knowing anything. You seem to treat these two different meanings as the same meaning. I know God Is Perfect. I know God cannot create a round square. I don't know if He can create a being with a 10th sense or not. Again, unknowns versus absurdities, versus knowns. Do not confuse or conflate them or treat them as being the same.

As I said a zillion times: once an experience occurs it will be known (B). It is knowledge to be had in the future. You cannot deny this.

To use your own words, do you acknowledge that it is knowledge to be had in the future (when the choice is made) and not now when the choice has not been made? If not, then why are you specifically saying "it is knowledge to be had in the future" as opposed to "it is knowledge to be had now" ?

[NickGaspar]

The problem is in your title-claim.
"Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect"
The enduring question of humanity has always been "Does god exist". The arbitrary relabeling of god to the state you need to prove him in is not an honest or reasonable way to answer that question.
To do that you will first need to define him but not by claiming he is the state you need to prove he is in! We already have a label for the state of being...its Existence.
After defining him you will need to provide objective evidence for his existence.
Last bu not least, you need to prove through synthetic propositions that existence is indeed Perfect.
So the problem is that you have 2 presuppositions that you are unable to verify them through a synthetic proposition(God and existence to be perfect) and the arbitrary equation of two different concepts (god and existence) when your sole obligation is to prove that a god can be in that state(of existence).

[philosopher19]

But the question of whether it is, in fact, self-contradictory obviously hangs on the definition of the term "one thing". If it means "a single object occupying a single location" then obviously the statement is self-contradictory.

I know. And that's exactly what I highlighted to Nick. I asked him to give me an example of something that is a priori absurd but a posteriori true, and he gave me the above.

You cannot hold semantically inconsistent (contradictory in meaning) beliefs such as soothing coming from nothing or one thing being two different things at the same time. Other examples include triangle being four-sided. Existence being finite. Existence being imperfect. Nick understanding one thing being in two different places at the same time. Steve understanding something coming from nothing. Either Nick and Steve are focused on different semantics to the semantic that I focus on when the word "one thing" and "nothing" are used, or they are just blatantly lying when they say they understand absurdities (semantical inconsistencies).

You cannot understand that which is not understandable. You cannot focus on nothing. You cannot think about nothing. You're either not focusing/thinking, or you're thinking about something, or focusing on something.

[philosopher19]

The problem is in your title-claim.
"Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect"
The enduring question of humanity has always been "Does god exist". The arbitrary relabeling of god to the state you need to prove him in is not an honest or reasonable way to answer that question.
To do that you will first need to define him but not by claiming he is the state you need to prove he is in! We already have a label for the state of being...its Existence.
After defining him you will need to provide objective evidence for his existence.
Last bu not least, you need to prove through synthetic propositions that existence is indeed Perfect.
So the problem is that you have 2 presuppositions that you are unable to verify them through a synthetic proposition(God and existence to be perfect) and the arbitrary equation of two different concepts (god and existence) when your sole obligation is to prove that a god can be in that state(of existence).

I considered all semantics, and then formed semantically consistent beliefs about Existence. If you had done the same, you would not describe the Omnipresent as finite. You would not embrace absurdities in the name of unknowns. You would not equate absurdities with unknowns. You would be sincere to the semantics that you are aware of. You would be sincere to truth. You would be sincere to Realty/Existence, not rejecting of It and Its Nature.

Call that which is Omnipresent, "Existence". Is Existence Infinite? Has Existence always existed. Will ever turn to non-Existence?

[NickGaspar]

The problem is in your title-claim.
"Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect"
The enduring question of humanity has always been "Does god exist". The arbitrary relabeling of god to the state you need to prove him in is not an honest or reasonable way to answer that question.
To do that you will first need to define him but not by claiming he is the state you need to prove he is in! We already have a label for the state of being...its Existence.
After defining him you will need to provide objective evidence for his existence.
Last bu not least, you need to prove through synthetic propositions that existence is indeed Perfect.
So the problem is that you have 2 presuppositions that you are unable to verify them through a synthetic proposition(God and existence to be perfect) and the arbitrary equation of two different concepts (god and existence) when your sole obligation is to prove that a god can be in that state(of existence).

I considered all semantics, and then formed semantically consistent beliefs about Existence. If you had done the same, you would not describe the Omnipresent as finite. You would not embrace absurdities in the name of unknowns. You would not equate absurdities with unknowns. You would be sincere to the semantics that you are aware of. You would be sincere to truth. You would be sincere to Realty/Existence, not rejecting of It and Its Nature.

Call that which is Omnipresent, "Existence". Is Existence Infinite? Has Existence always existed. Will ever turn to non-Existence?

You didn't address the points in my last post.

[NickGaspar]

But the question of whether it is, in fact, self-contradictory obviously hangs on the definition of the term "one thing". If it means "a single object occupying a single location" then obviously the statement is self-contradictory.

I know. And that's exactly what I highlighted to Nick. I asked him to give me an example of something that is a priori absurd but a posteriori true, and he gave me the above.

You cannot hold semantically inconsistent (contradictory in meaning) beliefs such as soothing coming from nothing or one thing being two different things at the same time. Other examples include triangle being four-sided. Existence being finite. Existence being imperfect. Nick understanding one thing being in two different places at the same time. Steve understanding something coming from nothing. Either Nick and Steve are focused on different semantics to the semantic that I focus on when the word "one thing" and "nothing" are used, or they are just blatantly lying when they say they understand absurdities (semantical inconsistencies).

You cannot understand that which is not understandable. You cannot focus on nothing. You cannot think about nothing. You're either not focusing/thinking, or you're thinking about something, or focusing on something.

I only gave an example on how questionable absolute statements are in extreme scales of reality and why the phase " we don't know" is the best position we can hold.
We need to stay honest and avoid absolute claims since we don't have a way to investigate them.
As I pointed out logic and empirical indications suggest that absolute "nothing" as a preexisting "state" is a non sequitur. What does it even mean for nothing to be a state. To be means to exist .
I guess you argument goes like this: "something can't come from nothing.....therefore god is that something.
That is a huge jump and an unjustified equation of different concepts. I don't know how one can demonstrate that claim.
In addition to that, it's one thing to say "nothing" can not be a prexisting state of the Cosmos and an other to prove that everything in our Cosmos can only be caused by existing nothings . We just don't know and can't prove that.

[Mark1955]

I only gave an example on how questionable absolute statements are in extreme scales of reality and why the phase "we don't know" is the best position we can hold.

I'd go a step further and say it's the only position we can defend, but the human ego is not built for humility so it is one few are willing to even acknowledge. It is also an evolutionary dead end as 'I don't know if I should have children' always loses to 'I am superman and must breed as fast as I can'.

[Steve3007]

I'd just like to clarify some terminology usage, and perhaps tighten it up a bit.

Superposition in QM is a phenomenon of real life that contradicts an analytical statement "one thing can only be in one place at a time".

-"If the statement "one thing can be in more than one location at a time" really was self-contradictory then it would be of no use in QM or anything else"

-Correct.

This leaves me uncertain as to how you use the expression "contradicts an analytical statement". I assumed (wrongly I guess) that when you refer to an analytical statement here, you're referring to a statement that is necessarily true, by definition. i.e. its truth is such that to deny it would be self-contradictory. Therefore something which contradicts it would be necessarily false, by definition. But you seem to agree with me that self-contradictory statements are of no use to QM or anything else.

So could you flesh out what it means to you for something to "contradict an analytical statement"? The way I would use that expression, nothing in QM or any other field of physics contradicts analytical statements because to do so would be self-contradictory.

[Steve3007]

-If you claim that QM demonstrates the existence of single things being in more than one place at the same time then you're simply defining the term "single thing" in that context.

-We dont know....

I'd like to just stop there and clarify what you mean by this, and then deal with the rest of this section (quoted below) after that's done. We don't know what? We don't know whether we're defining the term "single thing" in the context of QM?

...As Richard Feynman stated "if you thing you understand QM, you don't understand QM.". Then there is this problem called Observation Objectivity Collapse. Our observations in QM are not really "observations"of a particle. Essentially we crash fermions and bozons and we record the aftermath. So we are interfering with the system and that is a problem. Then its the problem of "single thing". Particles are not things but energetic glitches in fields. We can not really have a definite answer on what's going on in such small scales so its really a risk to assume that the law of identity persists as an absolute rule or breaks down in extreme scales.
So I am not promoting any specific definition, I just say that we don't have enough evidence to assume the absolute validity of the claim.

To be considered later!

[Steve3007]

You cannot hold semantically inconsistent (contradictory in meaning) beliefs such as soothing coming from nothing or one thing being two different things at the same time.

As we know from past conversations, and from the recent post I wrote which you quoted from, I regard "something is nothing" as self-contradictory and "something coming from nothing" as not self-contradictory, but with the caveat that we didn't finish discussing what the expression "coming from" is intended to mean, so I assumed a meaning. I regard "something is nothing" as self-contradictory simply because, in my usage, the word "something" is defined as not nothing. That's what it means for something to be self-contradictory. It is about the definitions of words. It's nothing to do with what may or may not be the case in the world. To think otherwise would be to commit a fallacy of reification of abstractions. (Or a hypostatization, as Count Lucanor called it in a post to you.)

I'm not using the expression "semantically inconsistent" here because you appear to be confused as to what exactly you mean by it. You often claim that you're using it to mean the same as "self contradictory" yet you frequently use it to to vaguely refer to phenomena that don't fit a strong pattern established via inductive reasoning from empirical observations. Two very different things. A conversation in which the meaning of the key phrase in the whole topic is vague and ambiguous isn't going to get far (as we've discovered).

[Steve3007]

Quantum mechanics, like the rest of physics (and science generally), is a process of finding patterns in observations, calling those patterns laws, and proposing that they will continue. There is then the additional activity of speculating as to how those patterns of observations might map to a real world - the process of fitting the map to a proposed territory; the process of constructing an ontology.

If part of one of those patterns/laws in QM was the proposition that "an object can be in two places at the same time" then, if we're going to make any meaningful comments on that proposition, the first thing to do is to be clear as to the observations that led to it being proposed. It's only by doing this that we can unambiguously work out what the proposer means by the words in that proposition. If we don't unambiguously work that out then we've really got no chance of resolving any arguments as to whether that proposition makes sense, is self-contradictory, or whatever. It'll just end up like most of the arguments here: pages and pages of each poster insisting that the other is talking nonsense, contradicting themselves, etc.

Ultimately, the only way to unambiguously define what we mean by words like "object" and "place" is via observations and potential observations.

---

I tried this in a much earlier part of this topic, in conversation with philosopher19, on the subject of what is often called "wave/particle duality". I tried to get Phil to see why it's perfectly coherent to state that an electron is both a wave and a particle at the same time. I did this by briefly describing what is actually observed in the frequently discussed twin slit experiment. I pointed out that the raw observation is that discrete, individual flashes occur on the screen at the back of the apparatus, that the positions of individual flashes are unpredictable but that the pattern of flashes which builds up is described by a wave equation. In this way, I hoped it would become clearer what physicists mean when they say that an electron has both particle-like and wave-like properties, or, for short, an electron is both a particle and a wave.

It didn't work. He/she walked away and flat out refused to engage in the conversation. But I still live in hope.