Mutual Means Hypothesis - Understanding The Void
- Spiral Out
- Posts: 5014
- Joined: June 26th, 2012, 10:22 am
Mutual Means Hypothesis - Understanding The Void
The primary concept of the hypothesis, the “mutual means”, is that the means by which a thing exists is also the means by which existence produced that thing.
This concept simply says that existence and experience are inseparable and have a reciprocal interdependent relationship for their being. In other words, while the existence is indeed necessary for the experience, it is the experience itself that makes the existence real.
The MMH is a refutation of the common assertion that existence is entirely independent of experience while experience is entirely dependent on existence.
I agree that experience requires existence but the further assumption that existence does not require experience is based on an objective bias, or what I would call the assumption of “being without knowing”.
Using the MMH, I will show this assumption to be incorrect, and that an objective bias is the most fundamental misconception of an environment limited to physicality alone.
The MMH is about things, especially regarding which particular claims about any particular thing are valid, specifically the existence of a thing.
Also, it is important to note that the concepts of what is real and what exists are not equivalent concepts, and this is critically important relative to the valid claims we can make about things.
The MMH simply states that in order for a thing to exist it must be observed and realized (i.e. experienced).
In other words, in order for a material object or other physical phenomenon to have actual being it must be perceived and made real through subjective experience.
The realization of a thing simply causes a thing to be real, it does not cause it to materialize (become material), and thus conversely non-realization or derealization does not cause a thing to be immaterial or dematerialize. Also, realization does not determine a thing’s actual objective thingness (as in the case of hallucination) where a thing may be real (to the observer) but does not have actual material being.
The underlying concept is that existence is dependent upon the experience of things and also that experience is dependent upon existent things. Existence and experience are fundamentally interdependent.
There are several axioms with associated states of potential that will support the Mutual Means Hypothesis.
Axiom #1: Things exist.
This is the first and most common state where we form our reality. This is the state of absolute potential, or realization.
While the claim that things exist is quite self-evident, the justification for claiming that things exist is even more self-evident. It is because we can observe these things, and thus realize (verify) their existence.
Another associated, yet unfounded claim with the state of absolute potential is that things exist outside of our observation and realization of them, or that existence is independent of experience.
This claim is based on objective bias. This objective bias is due to the fact that we are constantly observing and realizing things which creates an attachment to things and physicality. Since all we can know is what’s there and not what isn’t there it creates this bias toward thingness.
We can observe and realize the existence of observable things.
Axiom #2: There are unobserved things that possess only the potential for existence.
This is the second and less common state where we form assumptions. This is the state of qualified potential, or conceptualization.
The claim that things might exist is also quite self-evident, but what is the justification for claiming that there are things that potentially exist? It is because we have discovered previously unobserved things, and thus we can extrapolate that other unobserved things also potentially exist. It is the concept of discovery that allows us to make this claim.
However, the potential for the existence of things is not infinite and thus must be limited both in quantity (i.e. not all things exist in all places at all times) and in quality (i.e. there exist no glass trees) and therefore the potential for the existence of things must be qualified by the paradigm of previous experiences. Any potential existences must be extrapolations on the observed paradigm.
Again, this potential must be qualified by the concepts formed through previous experiences and follow that established paradigm. We also must be able to assign conceptual descriptive values (CDVs), or characteristics, to a thing in order to claim the existence of that thing, otherwise we are not speaking of any thing.
We can conceptualize and imagine the potential existence of observable yet unobserved things.
Axiom #3: That which cannot be observed and thus cannot be realized, or which cannot be assigned characteristics (cannot be described), is not a thing and therefore cannot exist.
This is the third and perhaps most difficult state to understand. This is the state of zero potential, or negation.
This is the Void. The Void is a zero potential state, or a negation of potential.
The claim associated with the state of zero potential is that no things exist outside of our observation and realization (conscious experience).
The above claim incorporates two distinct ideas.
1. When a thing cannot be observed and realized then there is zero potential for that thing to exist.
This is when a thing, or the characteristics of that thing, are either unobserved and thus unrealized, or unobservable and thus unrealizable. This can either be due to a fundamental lack of intrinsic qualities in the thing itself or a lack of sensory apparatus or sensory ability in the observer.
2. When an observer cannot observe and realize (such as when the observer is dead) then there is zero potential for any thing to exist.
A thing cannot exist unless we can assign a full set of CDVs to that thing. We cannot assign any CDVs to a thing that does not exist and we cannot assign CDVs to a thing if we ourselves do not exist. Therefore if we do not exist then things also cannot exist.
This is why I have stated previously in other topics regarding this concept that existence is contained entirely within itself. We can only know of existence because we ourselves exist. Things only exist because we are one of those things ourselves, and because we can observe and realize them.
The Void is not a thing. The Void does not exist as a thing. The Void is a subjective nothingness (no-thing-ness) which renders any objective thing unobservable and unrealizable and thus irrelevant and nonexistent.
The Void is the negation of the potential for a thing to exist.
When we ask the question “does a thing “x” exist?” then we must consider it relative to its qualified potential, meaning that we must assign a minimum of CDVs (characteristics) to that thing in order to propose its existence in the first place. Otherwise, we are asking if nothing (no thing) exists, and by virtue of unassigned CDVs the thing in question could be any thing at all with any and all characteristics, either conceivable or inconceivable, and then we are really asking if there are an infinity of existent things. It is self evident that there is not an infinite quantity and/or quality of existent things.
We cannot claim that any thing exists without assigning CDVs to it, and those CDVs are inherently limited to what we are able to conceptualize based on our previous experiences and as derived from our limited senses. This is the paradigm of existence that things must conform to, otherwise the thing would be unobservable and thus unrealizable, and therefore would not exist.
Since there are clearly limits to what can potentially exist due to the limitations of the observation and realization from our limited senses, the qualified potential is limited to that which excludes unobservable things.
Unobservable things cannot exist because we cannot assign any CDVs to them.
Also note that when considering the potential of things, we must also consider the potential of the observing entities. This means that in addition to the three states of potential for the things themselves, there are also three states of potential for the observer.
For example, a conscious person has an absolute potential for observation and realization and thus things exist, a sleeping or otherwise alive but unconscious person has a qualified potential for observation and realization and thus things might exist, and a dead person has zero potential for observation and realization and thus things cannot exist.
If no things are realized, either due to an entity’s inability to observe and realize or due to the lack of an object’s intrinsic properties, then there is only the Void. A thing does not have to exist in order to be real (in the case of hallucination) but a thing does have to be real in order to exist, as in the case of assigned characteristics (CDVs).
I have thus shown that while the Void does not exist, it is quite real. I hope this adequately explains my conception of the Void.
What do you think about the Void and what questions do you have after reading this hypothesis?
- Misty
- Premium Member
- Posts: 5934
- Joined: August 10th, 2011, 8:13 pm
- Location: United States of America
Re: Mutual Means Hypothesis - Understanding The Void
"the means by which a thing exists is also the means by which existence produced that thing." (same idea - two ways of saying it))
If I may, the means (mother/father) by which a thing (baby) exists, is also the means (mother/father) by which existence (mother/father) produced that thing (baby). Isn't this saying the exact same thing?
Misty
-- Updated Fri Jun 05, 2015 5:55 pm to add the following --
"The RMH simply states that in order for a thing to exist it must be observed and realized (i.e. experienced.)"
The thing (baby) can be realized but not observed. (At least not until sonograms were invented)
I don't think your hypothesis works. Something must exist before it can be experienced.
The eyes can only see what the mind has, is, or will be prepared to comprehend.
I am Lion, hear me ROAR! Meow.
- Spiral Out
- Posts: 5014
- Joined: June 26th, 2012, 10:22 am
Re: Mutual Means Hypothesis - Understanding The Void
Spiral Out wrote:The primary concept of the hypothesis, the “mutual means”, is that the means by which a thing exists is also the means by which existence produced that thing.
Spiral Out wrote:In other words, while the existence is indeed necessary for the experience, it is the experience itself that makes the existence real.
How can existence be a means to itself?Misty wrote:If I may, the means (mother/father) by which a thing (baby) exists, is also the means (mother/father) by which existence (mother/father) produced that thing (baby). Isn't this saying the exact same thing?
What exists is not necessarily real and what is real does not necessarily exist.
- Misty
- Premium Member
- Posts: 5934
- Joined: August 10th, 2011, 8:13 pm
- Location: United States of America
Re: Mutual Means Hypothesis - Understanding The Void
Existence provides existence, existence experiences existence.Spiral Out wrote:Spiral Out wrote:The primary concept of the hypothesis, the “mutual means”, is that the means by which a thing exists is also the means by which existence produced that thing.Spiral Out wrote:In other words, while the existence is indeed necessary for the experience, it is the experience itself that makes the existence real.Misty wrote:If I may, the means (mother/father) by which a thing (baby) exists, is also the means (mother/father) by which existence (mother/father) produced that thing (baby). Isn't this saying the exact same thing?Spiral Out wrote:How can existence be a means to itself?
What exists is not necessarily real and what is real does not necessarily exist.
The eyes can only see what the mind has, is, or will be prepared to comprehend.
I am Lion, hear me ROAR! Meow.
- Spiral Out
- Posts: 5014
- Joined: June 26th, 2012, 10:22 am
Re: Mutual Means Hypothesis - Understanding The Void
I can just as easily claim that "Void provides Void", but that's just as meaningless as "existence provides existence".Misty wrote:Existence provides existence
Coffee cups exist. Can coffee cups experience existence?Misty wrote:existence experiences existence.
- Misty
- Premium Member
- Posts: 5934
- Joined: August 10th, 2011, 8:13 pm
- Location: United States of America
Re: Mutual Means Hypothesis - Understanding The Void
That is quite silly SO. There is existence that creates or manufactures and there is existence that is created or manufactured..Spiral Out wrote:I can just as easily claim that "Void provides Void", but that's just as meaningless as "existence provides existence".Misty wrote:Existence provides existence
Coffee cups exist. Can coffee cups experience existence?Misty wrote:existence experiences existence.
The eyes can only see what the mind has, is, or will be prepared to comprehend.
I am Lion, hear me ROAR! Meow.
- Spiral Out
- Posts: 5014
- Joined: June 26th, 2012, 10:22 am
Re: Mutual Means Hypothesis - Understanding The Void
What differentiates an "existence that creates or manufactures" from an "existence that is created or manufactured"?Misty wrote:There is existence that creates or manufactures and there is existence that is created or manufactured..
What does this mean?Misty wrote:Existence provides existence
So you're saying that only "existence that creates or manufactures" experiences existence?Misty wrote:existence experiences existence
What is the "existence that creates or manufactures" you're speaking of?
-
- Posts: 1532
- Joined: May 6th, 2013, 4:03 pm
- Location: Yorkshire
Re: Mutual Means Hypothesis - Understanding The Void
But you also say:The MMH simply states that in order for a thing to exist it must be observed and realized (i.e. experienced).
Hallucinations are experienced, which seems to fulfil your criterion for "existence" yet you also seem to be implying that hallucinations, while being real, do not exist. Maybe you mean that being experienced is just one of the conditions a thing has to fulfil in order to exist and I didn't pick up on it. I haven't fully digested the hypothesis yet and I hope I'm not being overly ambitious to think I eventually will but I'll give it a shot.A thing does not have to exist in order to be real (in the case of hallucination)
- Spiral Out
- Posts: 5014
- Joined: June 26th, 2012, 10:22 am
Re: Mutual Means Hypothesis - Understanding The Void
Exactly right Harbal. Axiom #2 states that there are unobserved things that possess the potential for existence. It is this potential for existence that is key to the hypothesis.Harbal wrote:Maybe you mean that being experienced is just one of the conditions a thing has to fulfil in order to exist and I didn't pick up on it.
Again, the concepts of what is real and what exists are not equivalent concepts, and this is critically important relative to the valid claims we can make about things.
Hallucinations are experienced which makes the things in the hallucination real, yet they do not exist.
"The MMH simply states that in order for a thing to exist it must be observed and realized (i.e. experienced)."
I see where the use of "existence" might be confusing in this context. Thanks for pointing that out.Harbal wrote:Hallucinations are experienced, which seems to fulfil your criterion for "existence" yet you also seem to be implying that hallucinations, while being real, do not exist.
The qualifier for existence in this case is based on the thing initially possessing a state of objective thingness, which admittedly cannot be directly verified. However, I don't think that this singular condition really makes any difference to the hypothesis when considered as a whole.
In fact, this condition may be another level of support for the hypothesis in that if objective thingness cannot be verified, except perhaps through the common agreement of multiple observers (consensus), then how can the objective thingness be claimed to be an actual thing external to our own being?
Even then, simple consensus still wouldn't make whatever is agreed upon an actuality, as in the case of the concept of gods.
-
- Posts: 1532
- Joined: May 6th, 2013, 4:03 pm
- Location: Yorkshire
Re: Mutual Means Hypothesis - Understanding The Void
Once we have grasped the concept of the void what can we do with it?
- Spiral Out
- Posts: 5014
- Joined: June 26th, 2012, 10:22 am
Re: Mutual Means Hypothesis - Understanding The Void
-
- Posts: 1532
- Joined: May 6th, 2013, 4:03 pm
- Location: Yorkshire
Re: Mutual Means Hypothesis - Understanding The Void
I started to be more careful when I crossed the road.Spiral Out wrote: What did you do with the understanding that you are mortal?
The reason I asked what we could do with it is that I thought the answer might give me a target to aim for in trying to better understand your hypothesis.
- Spiral Out
- Posts: 5014
- Joined: June 26th, 2012, 10:22 am
Re: Mutual Means Hypothesis - Understanding The Void
I appreciate your interest.
-
- Posts: 1532
- Joined: May 6th, 2013, 4:03 pm
- Location: Yorkshire
Re: Mutual Means Hypothesis - Understanding The Void
I'm not sure. I think it's the differentiation between existence and reality. I can't reconcile what it says in some parts of the post with what it says in other parts, regarding the difference between what it is to exist and what it is to be real. My first impulse was to ask for a more precise definition of the two terms but then I thought the hypothesis probably is the definition, in which case the question would have looked a bit dumb. I think maybe I need to read through it a couple more times.Spiral Out wrote:What parts of it require more explanation?
- Spiral Out
- Posts: 5014
- Joined: June 26th, 2012, 10:22 am
Re: Mutual Means Hypothesis - Understanding The Void
Try to think of them in terms of potential.Harbal wrote:I think it's the differentiation between existence and reality. I can't reconcile what it says in some parts of the post with what it says in other parts, regarding the difference between what it is to exist and what it is to be real.
Reality is a state of absolute potential. The thing is observed and realized, or the observer is conscious and has an absolute potential for observation and realization and thus things exist.
Existence is a state of qualified potential. The thing is unobserved and unrealized, or the observer is sleeping or otherwise alive but unconscious and has a qualified potential for observation and realization and thus things might exist.
The Void is a state of zero potential. The thing is unobservable and unrealizable, or the observer is dead and has zero potential for observation and realization and thus things cannot exist.
Does a thing exist?
If it is observed and thus realized, then it exists. If it is unobserved and thus unrealized, then it might exist. If it is unobservable and thus unrealizable, then it doesn't exist.
Is it unobservable and unrealizable because its characteristics are not sensible to an observer? Then that thing cannot exist.
Is it unobservable and unrealizable because the observer has zero potential for observation and realization? Then nothing (the Void) can exist. The Void is a zero potential state, or the negation of potential.
I'm not very adept at explaining my thoughts clearly. My apologies.Harbal wrote:I think maybe I need to read through it a couple more times.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
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
by Chet Shupe
March 2023