All Particles in the Universe Non-Unique: Evidence for an Infinite Universe

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
User avatar
psyreporter
Posts: 1022
Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
Contact:

Re: All Particles in the Universe Non-Unique: Evidence for an Infinite Universe

Post by psyreporter »

Terrapin Station wrote: May 25th, 2021, 2:56 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: May 25th, 2021, 2:12 pm There is an 'issness' involved in your argument ("existent 'is' an existent"),
I mean, just to start with the above, what the heck does it mean for there to be an "isness" versus an alternative? What would the alternative be?
You specifically mentioned the following:

There's no suggestion that an existent need be "real" in the traditional real/antireal sense, just that an existent must 'be' an existent.

Your argument involves the concept 'being' as a to be assumed non-disputable factor, on the basis of which then claims are to be made about the fundamental nature of reality, for example the claim 'Either we're exhausting the logical possibilities or we're not.', i.e., an existent is bound to require an explanation with two possible options, it either magically having sprung into existence or having always existed.

You then asked: Again, if you can think of a third option, that's great, but you'd need to present what the third option would be. which re-enforces the idea that the two options are the only 'possible' options.

The reasoning behind the idea that there are just two possible options is based on the assumed 'issness-factor' (non-disputable being) of an existent.

My argument is that the issness-factor of an existent is questionable with the cited study in the OP being an example.

When all particles in the Universe are entangled by kind that would imply that non-locality is applicable to reality itself and that an existent does not have an issness-factor that is bound to require an explanation within a limited frame of thinking (i.e. the two options).

Non-locality on a fundamental level implies a lack of 'begin' (issness-factor). Since space and time are bound to each other, non-locality is applicable to both space and time.

Non-locality would involve 'all space and all time' without 'all' having a begin or end, i.e. without all being a totality.

Non-locality would provide the basis for a theoretical foundation for a third option to explain 'objective reality' (existents).
PsyReporter.com | “If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.”
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: All Particles in the Universe Non-Unique: Evidence for an Infinite Universe

Post by Terrapin Station »

arjand wrote: May 26th, 2021, 9:26 am When all particles in the Universe are entangled by kind that would imply that non-locality is applicable to reality itself and that an existent does not have an issness-factor that is bound to require an explanation within a limited frame of thinking (i.e. the two options).
Again, you're mixing up two different things here (ontology and logical possibilities, and you're inserting your own notion of "requiring an explanation"), despite the fact that I've explained to you many times that no one is saying that.

Aside from this, how would we make sense of entanglement with non-locality as a property as avoiding "isness" so that existents don't have to be existents? You'd have to explain that in some way that I could make sense of it, because it just seems completely incoherent to me. (But really, it's probably because you're reading other things into this that no one is saying.)
Non-locality on a fundamental level implies a lack of 'begin' (issness-factor).
No one said anything even remotely resembling that existents must have beginnings.

At any rate, why would non-locality imply a lack of a beginning? How are you figuring that?
Non-locality would provide the basis for a theoretical foundation for a third option to explain 'objective reality' (existents).
I have no idea what this is saying. And "third option" there doesn't seem to have anything to do with what I was talking about earlier.

You're clearly not understanding my comments, but you seem to think that you are. And I'm not understanding a lot of your comments, but you're not explaining them to me in a very systematic way so that I can understand them.
User avatar
psyreporter
Posts: 1022
Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
Contact:

Re: All Particles in the Universe Non-Unique: Evidence for an Infinite Universe

Post by psyreporter »

Terrapin Station wrote: May 26th, 2021, 9:40 am Again, you're mixing up two different things here (ontology and logical possibilities, and you're inserting your own notion of "requiring an explanation"), despite the fact that I've explained to you many times that no one is saying that.
When you mention that 'logical possibilities are exhausted' and that there are just two options available it implies that it is considered that an explanation is required within the context that is denoted with 'exhausted'.

When you prefix the term existent with 'be' then you add the quality being to it and the sentence does it in such a way that it is to be considered a non-disputable assumption that the quality being is applicable. You are essentially asking: why is an existent not a being?, as if that would be nonsensical.

The consequences of the non-disputable assumption can be seen in your denotion of time as Tn by which you concluded that time must have had a beginning and the use of conscious experience as ground for the assumption that reality is necessarily 'real' (an existent or being).

You once mentioned the following, which provides an example:
Terrapin Station wrote: May 4th, 2021, 6:16 pm First, why would "what causes reality to exist" be necessary for knowing whether there is reality? (Keeping in mind that by "reality" here we're referring to the objective world.)
My reply: Because without such knowledge, one can pose anything, from 'random chance' to 'illusion' to 'magic' to a simulation by aliens. Such a situation does not allow one to make a claim that poses that reality is 'real'.

My argument is that conscious experience provides no basis for the claim that reality is real since it is a retro-perspective and that would imply that it is not justified to assume that existents poses the quality 'being' (outside the scope of a perspective).

Terrapin Station wrote: May 26th, 2021, 9:40 amAside from this, how would we make sense of entanglement with non-locality as a property as avoiding "isness" so that existents don't have to be existents?
Entanglement by kind proves that non-locality is applicable to reality itself. Such an entanglement cannot be a physical property because 'kind' is a qualia and a physical property of a qualia is impossible.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/ (qualia are non-physical)

Non-locality on a fundamental level would avoid isness or being as a factor that requires an explanation by the two magical options since without a begin, there is no ground to consider the concept being to be applicable on a fundamental level.

Non-locality as a pure concept may already make it logical on first sight, as without place and time it would be impossible to apprehend 'existent' or being.

Terrapin Station wrote: May 26th, 2021, 9:40 am At any rate, why would non-locality imply a lack of a beginning? How are you figuring that?
Since with non-locality spatial and temporal distance does not exist. When non-locality would be applicable to reality itself then that would imply that reality does not have a begin.

Terrapin Station wrote: May 26th, 2021, 9:40 am
Non-locality would provide the basis for a theoretical foundation for a third option to explain 'objective reality' (existents).
I have no idea what this is saying. And "third option" there doesn't seem to have anything to do with what I was talking about earlier.
Third option is merely used as a reference in a response to your demand for an alternative for the two magical options of which you claimed that it were exhausted logical options.

"Logical options. Either we're exhausting the logical possibilities or we're not. Again, if you can think of a third option, that's great, but you'd need to present what the third option would be."

Your specific notion of a 'third option' indicates that you assume that the two magical options are the only possible options. As has been shown, those two options are based on the assumption that the quality (physical) being is applicable to existents on a fundamental level.

You mentioned the following: "I'm a realist and a physicalist (aka "materialist")."

When non-locality is applicable to reality itself, the physical cannot be the origin of reality.
PsyReporter.com | “If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.”
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: All Particles in the Universe Non-Unique: Evidence for an Infinite Universe

Post by Terrapin Station »

arjand wrote: May 26th, 2021, 11:22 pm When you mention that 'logical possibilities are exhausted' and that there are just two options available it implies that it is considered that an explanation is required within the context that is denoted with 'exhausted'.
I don't know how you're thinking this. Take something like "Going to Jonestown." There are two logical possibilities with respect to going to Jonestown: we could go to Jonestown, or we could not go to Jonestown. If those are the only two possibilities, then we've exhausted the logical possibilities with respect to going to Jonestown (which is just another way of saying that we've made explicit/we've listed all of the logical possibilities--there are no other logical possibilities with respect to going to Jonestown). This has nothing to do with an explanation of anything. After all, we're talking about something that hasn't even happened yet. We're simply attempting to list all of the logical possibilities with respect to something. Maybe someone can think of a third possibility that "We could go to Jonestown, or we could not go to Jonestown" misses, in which case it would be helpful (for the purposes of exhausting the logical possibilities) for them to list the logical possibility(ies) that we missed.
When you prefix the term existent with 'be' then you add the quality being to it and the sentence does it in such a way that it is to be considered a non-disputable assumption that the quality being is applicable.
Sure, and again, you'd need to try to make sense of existents that "do not have being" if you want to claim that that would make sense.

The consequences of the non-disputable assumption can be seen in your denotion of time as Tn by which you concluded that time must have had a beginning
How many times now have I explained that I didn't say that time must have had a beginning. I said that that was one logical possibility.
My reply: Because without such knowledge, one can pose anything, from 'random chance' to 'illusion' to 'magic' to a simulation by aliens. Such a situation does not allow one to make a claim that poses that reality is 'real'.
All that "real" would refer to in that context is that we're talking about an objective/external world. Whether it's there due to random chance, or it's a simulation or whatever would be irrelevant to the fact that it's an objective/external world. (I have no memory of the context of that discussion now, by the way, but I'm "just saying" with respect to what you're quoting there and responding with.) Re "reality being an illusion," so that there is no such thing, that would be logically precluded if we're talking about reality as something external/objective.
My argument is that conscious experience provides no basis for the claim that reality is real since it is a retro-perspective and that would imply that it is not justified to assume that existents poses the quality 'being' (outside the scope of a perspective).
If there is conscious experience, conscious experience exists/its an existent of some sort. And if you want to say that existents do not have the "quality of being" you'd need to try to make some sense of what the heck that would amount to, because it just seems like you'd not be understanding common language otherwise.

This is going on way too long for going over and over the same stupid crap like anything useful is going to come out of this. I'm stopping there for now.
User avatar
psyreporter
Posts: 1022
Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
Contact:

Re: All Particles in the Universe Non-Unique: Evidence for an Infinite Universe

Post by psyreporter »

Terrapin Station wrote: May 27th, 2021, 7:23 am I don't know how you're thinking this. Take something like "Going to Jonestown." There are two logical possibilities with respect to going to Jonestown: we could go to Jonestown, or we could not go to Jonestown. If those are the only two possibilities, then we've exhausted the logical possibilities with respect to going to Jonestown (which is just another way of saying that we've made explicit/we've listed all of the logical possibilities--there are no other logical possibilities with respect to going to Jonestown). This has nothing to do with an explanation of anything. After all, we're talking about something that hasn't even happened yet. We're simply attempting to list all of the logical possibilities with respect to something. Maybe someone can think of a third possibility that "We could go to Jonestown, or we could not go to Jonestown" misses, in which case it would be helpful (for the purposes of exhausting the logical possibilities) for them to list the logical possibility(ies) that we missed.
There is a difference between a perspective and the fundamental nature of reality. Within the scope of a perspective, one can argue that there are just two options, e.g. going to Jonestown or not going to Jonestown.

On a fundamental level it would concern the potential to even consider one of the options to be possible and on that level it may not be possible to argue that the quality (physical) 'being' is applicable.

Terrapin Station wrote: May 27th, 2021, 7:23 amSure, and again, you'd need to try to make sense of existents that "do not have being" if you want to claim that that would make sense.
There is a difference between an individual existent and existent as a concept (i.e. the fundamental nature of 'existent'). With the latter it may not be possible that the quality being is applicable which would imply that the physical cannot be the origin of reality.

Terrapin Station wrote: May 27th, 2021, 7:23 amHow many times now have I explained that I didn't say that time must have had a beginning. I said that that was one logical possibility.
You specifically argued the following:
Terrapin Station wrote: February 15th, 2020, 5:11 pm Now, if there's an infinite amount of time prior to the creation of the Earth, how does the time of the creation of the Earth arrive. For it to arrive time has to pass through an infinity of durations, right? (Again, this is going by you saying that time is duration and that time as duration occurs independently of us.) Can time pass through an infinity of durations to get to a particular later time? How?
Terrapin Station wrote: February 18th, 2020, 8:32 am You don't seem to understand my comments to creation. The whole point is that if there's an infinite amount of time prior to Tn then we can't get to Tn because you can't complete an infinity of time prior to Tn. Why not? Because infinity isn't a quantity or amount we can ever reach or complete.
Terrapin Station wrote: February 18th, 2020, 6:57 pm The problem is the "continuing flux of change." There's this state, and then it changes to that state, etc.

To get to any particular state, T, if there's an infinity of previous change states, it's not possible to arrive at T, because an infinity can't be completed to get to T.
It is clear that you considered an infinite amount relative to Tn (i.e. 6:38 p.m.) on the basis of which you concluded that time must have had a beginning.

Terrapin Station wrote: May 27th, 2021, 7:23 amAll that "real" would refer to in that context is that we're talking about an objective/external world. Whether it's there due to random chance, or it's a simulation or whatever would be irrelevant to the fact that it's an objective/external world. (I have no memory of the context of that discussion now, by the way, but I'm "just saying" with respect to what you're quoting there and responding with.) Re "reality being an illusion," so that there is no such thing, that would be logically precluded if we're talking about reality as something external/objective.
My argument has been that there is no justification to use that assumed 'objective/external world' as ground for claims about the fundamental nature of that world. It is conscious experience that provides the basis for the idea that there is an 'objective/external world', which is a retro-perspective and thus no basis to make the claim that what underlays it is physical.

You once mentioned the following:
Terrapin Station wrote: March 5th, 2020, 4:30 pmSo I'm a physicalist. I'm convinced that the mind is simply brain processes.

I don't at all buy determinism.
I then asked the following two questions, to which you both answered with Yes.
  1. Do you believe in intrinsic existence without mind?
  2. Do you believe that mind has a cause within the scope of physical reality?
The main argument by Free Will Sceptics is the following, which is essentially the idea that mind is necessarily 'caused' within the scope of physical reality.

To make a choice that wasn’t merely the next link in the unbroken chain of causes, you’d have to be able to stand apart from the whole thing, a ghostly presence separate from the material world yet mysteriously still able to influence it. But of course you can’t actually get to this supposed place that’s external to the universe, separate from all the atoms that comprise it and the laws that govern them. You just are some of the atoms in the universe, governed by the same predictable laws as all the rest.

(2021) The clockwork universe: is free will an illusion?
A growing chorus of scientists and philosophers argue that free will does not exist. Could they be right?
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/a ... n-illusion

As can be seen from the reasoning by Free Will Sceptics, only the idea that mind has a primary role in nature could prevent a belief in determinism.

My original reply to your comment:

If the mind originates from brain processes, that implies that something that is physical determines who someone is (i.e. his/her thoughts and behaviour). From such a perspective it does not appear logical to maintain a belief in free will.

Why should one hold a belief in anything if one argues that the physical, something that can be defined, is the origin of the believing itself? It appears that such a conviction should naturally result in the abolishing of any form of believing, which includes the belief in free will.


The implications of the idea that an 'objective/external world' exists outside the scope of a perspective (i.e. that posses the quality 'being') are profound. The idea that such a world exists naturally results in a belief in determinism and the abolishing of morality.
Terrapin Station wrote: May 27th, 2021, 7:23 am If there is conscious experience, conscious experience exists/its an existent of some sort. And if you want to say that existents do not have the "quality of being" you'd need to try to make some sense of what the heck that would amount to, because it just seems like you'd not be understanding common language otherwise.

That statement cannot be said to be valid. What is refereed to as being an existent is merely meaning within the scope of a perspective (the memory that provides the basis to make any sort of notion). Such an experience or retro-perspective cannot provide evidence that conscious experience is an existent on a fundamental level (i.e. that its origin is physical).

With regard the quality being and language. Language is a means of communication and thus by definition is limited to the scope of a perspective. When it concerns the fundamental nature of reality, thus what precedes language for it to be possible, then the concept being essentially equals physical and it may not be plausible to consider such a concept to be possible to explain the fundamental nature of reality.
PsyReporter.com | “If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.”
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: All Particles in the Universe Non-Unique: Evidence for an Infinite Universe

Post by Terrapin Station »

arjand wrote: May 27th, 2021, 2:35 pm On a fundamental level it would concern the potential to even consider one of the options to be possible and on that level it may not be possible to argue that the quality (physical) 'being' is applicable.
What in the world is that saying? Can you explain it simpler/in other words?
User avatar
psyreporter
Posts: 1022
Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
Contact:

Re: All Particles in the Universe Non-Unique: Evidence for an Infinite Universe

Post by psyreporter »

Terrapin Station wrote: May 27th, 2021, 3:05 pm
arjand wrote: May 27th, 2021, 2:35 pm On a fundamental level it would concern the potential to even consider one of the options to be possible and on that level it may not be possible to argue that the quality (physical) 'being' is applicable.
What in the world is that saying? Can you explain it simpler/in other words?
In a simple logical format, it would be "the physical cannot be the origin of itself" (my footnote is similar), by which it would be obvious that the quality 'being' cannot be applicable to 'existent' on a fundamental level (i.e., as part of an 'external/objective world' that is to be considered 'real' because of it).
PsyReporter.com | “If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.”
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: All Particles in the Universe Non-Unique: Evidence for an Infinite Universe

Post by Terrapin Station »

arjand wrote: May 28th, 2021, 5:01 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: May 27th, 2021, 3:05 pm
arjand wrote: May 27th, 2021, 2:35 pm On a fundamental level it would concern the potential to even consider one of the options to be possible and on that level it may not be possible to argue that the quality (physical) 'being' is applicable.
What in the world is that saying? Can you explain it simpler/in other words?
In a simple logical format, it would be "the physical cannot be the origin of itself" (my footnote is similar), by which it would be obvious that the quality 'being' cannot be applicable to 'existent' on a fundamental level (i.e., as part of an 'external/objective world' that is to be considered 'real' because of it).
I just noticed your "physical" parenthetical above.

First, do we have straight that if we're saying that something is an existent/that something "has being" that we're NOT saying that it's physical or nonphysical or whatever?
User avatar
psyreporter
Posts: 1022
Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
Contact:

Re: All Particles in the Universe Non-Unique: Evidence for an Infinite Universe

Post by psyreporter »

Terrapin Station wrote: May 28th, 2021, 7:25 pmI just noticed your "physical" parenthetical above.

First, do we have straight that if we're saying that something is an existent/that something "has being" that we're NOT saying that it's physical or nonphysical or whatever?
The quality 'being' on a fundamental level equals physical (something that can be defined). The quality being is similar to the essence of value with the difference being the perspective in which it finds meaning (its applicability to 'the real world' while value per se is a more primary concept).

The argument is that the physical cannot be the origin of what is considered 'objective reality'. More simple: "value cannot be the origin of value".
PsyReporter.com | “If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.”
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: All Particles in the Universe Non-Unique: Evidence for an Infinite Universe

Post by Terrapin Station »

arjand wrote: May 29th, 2021, 3:44 pm The quality 'being' on a fundamental level equals physical (something that can be defined).
No, this is wrong. "Being" doesn't equal "physical." Where are you getting that from?

Also "physical" doesn't denote "something that can be defined."
User avatar
psyreporter
Posts: 1022
Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
Contact:

Re: All Particles in the Universe Non-Unique: Evidence for an Infinite Universe

Post by psyreporter »

Terrapin Station wrote: May 30th, 2021, 7:57 amNo, this is wrong. "Being" doesn't equal "physical." Where are you getting that from?
When it concerns the quality being, does it by definition imply applicability to what is considered 'real' within the scope 'empirical comprehensible'?

If yes, then the 'quality' being essentially equals the quality physical although in the latter the term has a connotation that goes a step further than being in that it refers to the geometrical aspect that is inherent to being.

When it concerns what precedes being, i.e. what makes it possible, one first derives at value or (the essence of) pattern-ness and then is to explain its origin.
Terrapin Station wrote: May 30th, 2021, 7:57 amAlso "physical" doesn't denote "something that can be defined."
When something physical cannot be defined (in theory), how would it be possible to even consider it? What other than a pure definition (in theory) could explain the physical from a physicalist perspective?
PsyReporter.com | “If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.”
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: All Particles in the Universe Non-Unique: Evidence for an Infinite Universe

Post by Terrapin Station »

arjand wrote: May 31st, 2021, 3:44 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: May 30th, 2021, 7:57 amNo, this is wrong. "Being" doesn't equal "physical." Where are you getting that from?
When it concerns the quality being, does it by definition imply applicability to what is considered 'real' within the scope 'empirical comprehensible'?

If yes, then the 'quality' being essentially equals the quality physical although in the latter the term has a connotation that goes a step further than being in that it refers to the geometrical aspect that is inherent to being.

When it concerns what precedes being, i.e. what makes it possible, one first derives at value or (the essence of) pattern-ness and then is to explain its origin.
Terrapin Station wrote: May 30th, 2021, 7:57 amAlso "physical" doesn't denote "something that can be defined."
When something physical cannot be defined (in theory), how would it be possible to even consider it? What other than a pure definition (in theory) could explain the physical from a physicalist perspective?
So:

"Being" doesn't imply "real" in the sense of "external to minds" or "objective" or anything like that.

"Being" doesn't imply something that's comprehensible (empirically or otherwise).

"Real" doesn't imply "physical."

"Physical" doesn't imply something "geometrical."

And none of this has been anything specific about physicalism.
User avatar
psyreporter
Posts: 1022
Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
Contact:

Re: All Particles in the Universe Non-Unique: Evidence for an Infinite Universe

Post by psyreporter »

Terrapin Station wrote: May 31st, 2021, 5:26 pm So:
"Being" doesn't imply "real" in the sense of "external to minds" or "objective" or anything like that.

Then, when one considers something physical that is to be 'objective' and independent of mind, what would be the term for what it is doing? Is it not 'being' or existing?

"Being" doesn't imply something that's comprehensible (empirically or otherwise).

Then, when something is not (potentially) comprehensible, especially when it concerns what is considered possible within the scope 'emperical', how can it be said that it be? Can you provide an example?

"Real" doesn't imply "physical."

What other than physical can be real from a physicalist perspective, if mind - and thus thoughts, emotions etc - is said to originate from the physical? Or alternatively, what can be considered 'real' if it is not physical (within a physicalist perspective)?

"Physical" doesn't imply something "geometrical."

When the physical cannot be defined within the scope of geometrics, then how can it be said to exist? What other than spatial and temporal distance can provide meaning to the concept 'physical'?

And none of this has been anything specific about physicalism.

The original question is whether the 'physical' can be the origin of the Universe and mind which was based on your argument that there are two logical options to explain an existent (being), it either magically having sprung into existence or having always existed.

You mentioned the following:

"Logical options. Either we're exhausting the logical possibilities or we're not. Again, if you can think of a third option, that's great, but you'd need to present what the third option would be. ... I'm a realist and a physicalist (aka "materialist")."

My argument was that it has been shown that those two options are based on the assumption that the quality (physical) being is applicable to existents on a fundamental level, to which you responded with the "Going to Jonestown." example (again two possible options) to which I responded that on a fundamental level it would concern the potential to even consider the two 'options' to be possible and that the quality physical may not be applicable on that level.

The primary argument behind the current discussion is the following:

When non-locality is applicable to reality itself, the physical cannot be the origin of reality.
PsyReporter.com | “If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.”
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: All Particles in the Universe Non-Unique: Evidence for an Infinite Universe

Post by Terrapin Station »

arjand wrote: June 1st, 2021, 5:40 pm "Being" doesn't imply "real" in the sense of "external to minds" or "objective" or anything like that.

Then, when one considers something physical that is to be 'objective' and independent of mind, what would be the term for what it is doing? Is it not 'being' or existing?
First, the comment you're responding to doesn't say "Being doesn't imply being or existing." It says that being doesn't imply real in the sense of external to minds. When we're talking about something that obtains somehow, including when it obtains physically, and including when it obtains mind-independently, we're talking about something that exists or that "has being." But "being" doesn't imply something real/physical/objective, etc.

This is just like when we're talking about something that's a common pet--like a dog, or a cat, etc., we're talking about an animal, but "animal" doesn't imply something that's commonly a pet. Badgers are animals, too, for example, but they're not commonly pets.

In other words "real (objective) things," "physical things," etc. are included in the circle of "being" or "existents" in a Venn diagram, but they don't comprise the entire circle. "Subjective things," "nonphysical things" and other categories would be in the same "being"/"existents" circle.
"Being" doesn't imply something that's comprehensible (empirically or otherwise).

Then, when something is not (potentially) comprehensible, especially when it concerns what is considered possible within the scope 'emperical', how can it be said that it be? Can you provide an example?
As long as something occurs/obtains somehow, it has being/it exists. It doesn't at all matter whether we can perceive, understand, etc. it. One would only think that if one believed that the universe hinged, in the sense of it being necessary for anything to obtain, on our understanding, our perceptions, etc.
"Real" doesn't imply "physical."

What other than physical can be real from a physicalist perspective,
From a physicalist perspective, but why would we be limiting this to a physicalist perspective? The terms themselves do not imply that.

There's nothing in the terms/the concepts themselves that precludes nonphysical, external to minds existents. An example that a lot of people believe in is real abstracts, such as mathematical objects, laws of physics, and so on.
if mind - and thus thoughts, emotions etc - is said to originate from the physical? Or alternatively, what can be considered 'real' if it is not physical (within a physicalist perspective)?
Again, I don't know why you're talking about a physicalist perspective here. I'm talking about these terms/concepts in general.
"Physical" doesn't imply something "geometrical."

When the physical cannot be defined within the scope of geometrics, then how can it be said to exist? What other than spatial and temporal distance can provide meaning to the concept 'physical'?
An example would be if one believes that singularities are possible. It doesn't make much sense to try to parse singularities as something with geometries--they're supposedly infinitely dense points more or less.
And none of this has been anything specific about physicalism.
The original question is whether the 'physical' can be the origin of the Universe and mind which was based on your argument that there are two logical options to explain an existent (being), it either magically having sprung into existence or having always existed.
Okay, but that's not at all what I've been talking about. At the moment, I'm only talking about the terms/concepts I'm mentioning in general.

Again, most of the time when I post on boards like this, I haven't the faintest idea what thread I'm even posting in--I really don't care. I'd much rather be chatting. Reading my comments as all being in support of some specific argument in the context of the overall thread would lead to constantly misreading my comments, because that's not at all what I have in mind. You have to read each comment of mine solely at face value, without reading anything more into it than what is explicitly in the comment.
User avatar
psyreporter
Posts: 1022
Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
Contact:

Re: All Particles in the Universe Non-Unique: Evidence for an Infinite Universe

Post by psyreporter »

Terrapin Station wrote: June 2nd, 2021, 7:52 am
arjand wrote: June 1st, 2021, 5:40 pm "Being" doesn't imply "real" in the sense of "external to minds" or "objective" or anything like that.

Then, when one considers something physical that is to be 'objective' and independent of mind, what would be the term for what it is doing? Is it not 'being' or existing?
First, the comment you're responding to doesn't say "Being doesn't imply being or existing." It says that being doesn't imply real in the sense of external to minds. When we're talking about something that obtains somehow, including when it obtains physically, and including when it obtains mind-independently, we're talking about something that exists or that "has being." But "being" doesn't imply something real/physical/objective, etc.

This is just like when we're talking about something that's a common pet--like a dog, or a cat, etc., we're talking about an animal, but "animal" doesn't imply something that's commonly a pet. Badgers are animals, too, for example, but they're not commonly pets.

In other words "real (objective) things," "physical things," etc. are included in the circle of "being" or "existents" in a Venn diagram, but they don't comprise the entire circle. "Subjective things," "nonphysical things" and other categories would be in the same "being"/"existents" circle.
You mentioned that you believe that mind originates from the physical:
Terrapin Station wrote: March 5th, 2020, 4:30 pmSo I'm a physicalist. I'm convinced that the mind is simply brain processes.

I don't at all buy determinism.
It would imply that anything within the scope of mind is ultimately something physical, which would include the mentioned categories such as "subjective things". Thus, how would it be possible to claim that being can be applicable to something other than physical?

Terrapin Station wrote: June 2nd, 2021, 7:52 am
"Being" doesn't imply something that's comprehensible (empirically or otherwise).

Then, when something is not (potentially) comprehensible, especially when it concerns what is considered possible within the scope 'emperical', how can it be said that it be? Can you provide an example?
As long as something occurs/obtains somehow, it has being/it exists. It doesn't at all matter whether we can perceive, understand, etc. it. One would only think that if one believed that the universe hinged, in the sense of it being necessary for anything to obtain, on our understanding, our perceptions, etc.
Would you not agree that anything within the scope of physical reality or empirical reality is 'potentially' comprehensible?
Terrapin Station wrote: June 2nd, 2021, 7:52 am
"Real" doesn't imply "physical."

What other than physical can be real from a physicalist perspective,
From a physicalist perspective, but why would we be limiting this to a physicalist perspective? The terms themselves do not imply that.

There's nothing in the terms/the concepts themselves that precludes nonphysical, external to minds existents. An example that a lot of people believe in is real abstracts, such as mathematical objects, laws of physics, and so on.
Yes, but since you believe that mind originates from the physical, it would ultimately be something physical, including qualia and mathematics.
Terrapin Station wrote: June 2nd, 2021, 7:52 am
"Physical" doesn't imply something "geometrical."

When the physical cannot be defined within the scope of geometrics, then how can it be said to exist? What other than spatial and temporal distance can provide meaning to the concept 'physical'?
An example would be if one believes that singularities are possible. It doesn't make much sense to try to parse singularities as something with geometries--they're supposedly infinitely dense points more or less.
Since infinite cannot be counted, such an idea is absurd. It is similar to the idea that Gravity is caused by Gravitons of which there must be an infinite amount.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton

Even in the case that a singularity would exist with no geometrical qualities, it would relate to something within the scope of space and time, and thus in that sense, a dot or otherwise, it nessesarily has a geometrical relation by which it can be considered physical.
Terrapin Station wrote: June 2nd, 2021, 7:52 am
And none of this has been anything specific about physicalism.
The original question is whether the 'physical' can be the origin of the Universe and mind which was based on your argument that there are two logical options to explain an existent (being), it either magically having sprung into existence or having always existed.
Okay, but that's not at all what I've been talking about. At the moment, I'm only talking about the terms/concepts I'm mentioning in general.
The primary argument behind the current discussion is the following:

When non-locality is applicable to reality itself, the physical cannot be the origin of reality.

In non-locality there is no spatial or temporal distance. It means that the 'begin' by which physical/empirical reality can be possible, would necessarily originate from a context of meaning (a pattern or value). Since what entails such meaning is bound by perception, the origin of physical reality is mind.
PsyReporter.com | “If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.”
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Science”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021