Do we have to say possible worlds exist concretely?

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2010
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

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

Post by Hereandnow » December 21st, 2017, 10:37 pm

You know Nameless, in all that you say, there are parts that are, could be, interesting. But it is as if you're some evangelical preacher so willing to fill space with ideas that no one of them gets a proper hearing. I wonder, can you relax a bit, and tell me how it is you know there is a one all inclusive reality? I mean, what is the basis in justifying belief in this? You believe it, clearly. But belief is coercive.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7341
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

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

Post by Greta » December 21st, 2017, 10:50 pm

Yes HAN, the approach is basically preaching, even if not a formal creed.
Namelesss wrote:
December 21st, 2017, 9:40 pm
Greta wrote:
December 21st, 2017, 9:21 pm
Yet to not parse is to misrepresent. One would think that the size of the lie or misrepresentation matters.
Of course it 'matters' (all 'mattering/meaning' existing in the thoughts/ego of the beholder) in the limited contexts in which we spend what we imagine to be our lives.
It can be a life an death matter, eg. if a novice engineer is picked ahead of an experienced engineer, because they are basically the same and it makes no difference. Standards must be taken seriously, even if they largely pertain to the meta-reality of human rules of engagement rather than reaching for the ontology of the situation.
Namelesss wrote:
I understand that you are aiming to be "above" all this,
I cannot go shopping without playing the ego game, nor can I write these things to you without playibng the ego/thought game.
I understand the nature of the game, I Know better.
Not 'aiming' for anything.
"Above" does not refer to ego, which I explained in the next part of the quote:
and there is no doubt that we are effectively Flatlanders living in a 3D realm on the surface of an oblate spheroid that is smoother than a billiard ball. In that we are the same. But reality does not exist only from the cosmic perspective; it is fractal in nature, and each layer ...
Namelesss wrote:All subsets that comprise the One Set are 'conditional'. That is how we generally experience what we think of as 'life'!
Please explain.
Namelesss wrote:
But to dismiss everything as equally illusory is to dismiss everything per se, in which we are stuck in a pointless, illusory life that was never worth living in the first place.

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

Much suffering is associated with those who do not understand the nature of their thoughts/ego and Reality!
Ask Buddha! *__-
Much suffering is associated with being alive per se, and it is only equal to those far enough from the pain to speak of it as an abstraction. What of the visceral aspect? That most of our lives are spent messing around with the froth and bubble of reality is not in question; it is the relative depth of reality of those things and the fact that life on Earth is far from "a level playing field", a homogeneity.

One can pan out and claim that everything is fairly homogeneous. Or one can observe in greater detail and appreciate the layers and variety of reality. I have debated this with numerous people because "all is illusion" is, aside from ad hominem attacks, my greatest irritation on philosophy sites. Basically the attitude says "you lot are talking rubbish because it's all the same illusion". I could not disagree more.

Thing is, how can one learn if they dismiss book learning as illusion? Doesn't that mean they will increasingly focus on internal rather than external dynamics until they basically disappear into their own torus?

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

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

Post by Namelesss » December 22nd, 2017, 2:27 am

Hereandnow wrote:
December 21st, 2017, 10:37 pm
You know Nameless, in all that you say, there are parts that are, could be, interesting. But it is as if you're some evangelical preacher so willing to fill space with ideas that no one of them gets a proper hearing.
Yes, I can understand that when I present the 'distillate' of over a half century of thought and experience that is can certainly seem that way!
But, on the other hand, should I include the half century of thought and experience that 'led' to the distillates that I offer?
I figure that if any of it means anything to anyone, that you are 'advanced enough' in your understanding/experience to ask intelligent questions, ask for elucidation.
If what I offer sounds like babble and is unworthy of further question, that's fine also.
I'm not 'selling' anything, I'm offering this unique Perspective, FWIW.
If there is any specific idea flying by that interests you, just ask.
I wonder, can you ... tell me how it is you know there is a one all inclusive reality?

Sure;
Definition.
Logic.
Science.
Experience.

There's the distillate. I'd be happy to provide a 'thumbnail' of any that you like.
I mean, what is the basis in justifying belief in this? You believe it, clearly. But belief is coercive.
No, I host no 'beliefs'.
What is 'clear' to you is... well... clear to you. We all peer into the mirror and imagine 'others'.
No, there is no 'belief' involved, there is experience and tentative theory.
Experience = Knowledge, 'belief' is something else.
Another topic, perhaps.
Again, I don't care what you think/believe, I am simply compelled to offer this Perspective.
FWIW to you and any.
Yes, 'belief' requires constant 'justification', not so Knowledge!

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

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

Post by Namelesss » December 22nd, 2017, 3:04 am

Greta wrote:
December 21st, 2017, 10:50 pm
Namelesss wrote: I cannot go shopping without playing the ego game, nor can I write these things to you without playing the ego/thought game.
I understand the nature of the game, I Know better.
Not 'aiming' for anything.
"Above" does not refer to ego, which I explained in the next part of the quote:
But "all this" does.
and there is no doubt that we are effectively Flatlanders living in a 3D realm on the surface of an oblate spheroid that is smoother than a billiard ball. In that we are the same.

I don't know what 'category' of people you have lost me in, that poisons the well from which the unique bit of Truth that I offer is obscured to you, but I do not go around with an "we are all the same" mantra. Had you been paying fair attention, you would have heard the Truth that we are all unique Perspectives! Hardly "all the same".
Unless you are talking metaphysically how we are all Souls, or Consciousness, or all the same One Omni- Self! But I don't think that's what you mean.
A cigar is just a cigar, and so much more.
But reality does not exist only from the cosmic perspective; it is fractal in nature, and each layer ...
Hey, I'm not the one divvying up Reality, or existence. Reality/existence is all inclusive, One. All diverse roads of real inquiry lead to that same place, whether logic, science or mysticism!
Namelesss wrote:All subsets that comprise the One Set are 'conditional'. That is how we generally experience what we think of as 'life'!
Please explain.
As I have explained elsewhere on here, the only tool by which the unconditional transcendental Self!/Reality can be fully Known/experienced, is by the duality, the 'conditional' the 'not this' but 'that where-which all can be Known.
No map is the territory described. Many have spent ALL their time with the map and do not even think that there can be 'other' territory! What do you mean the map is not the territory?!?!
I have equated it to traffic control lines on a new blacktop lot at night. It might as well extent off into forever in all directions, not anything by which to take bearings. Se we paint lines, limits, parking, etc... and get to Know the lot eventually.
The lines, to some, become everything.
Others Know better.
And therein can 'play' some with the ruled and 'order' that the lines so comfortably represent.
Namelesss wrote:
Nope!
Knowing that this apple is essentially some 'information waves/Mindstuff', not 'material' at all, Knowing that the weight is more perceived 'information waves', that the 'smell' and 'texture' and 'taste' and 'fart, and the whole recycle thing, etc... is just more 'information waves perceived, seems not to interfere with the feelings of joy and gratitude and 'fullness'/relief perceived!
I can enjoy a movie like anyone else, laugh and weep, but, I do understand it's 'illusory' nature.

Much suffering is associated with those who do not understand the nature of their thoughts/ego and Reality!
Ask Buddha! *__-
Much suffering is associated with being alive per se, and it is only equal to those far enough from the pain to speak of it as an abstraction.

Again, you are putting these absurd "it's all equal" words into my mouth. Need I respond to it?
I can speak of pain because I KNOW pain! It is NOT an abstraction!
You also seem to be conflating 'pain' and 'suffering'!
They are not the same thing.
What of the visceral aspect? That most of our lives are spent messing around with the froth and bubble of reality is not in question; it is the relative depth of reality of those things and the fact that life on Earth is far from "a level playing field", a homogeneity.
One more time, you are not arguing with me as I have not said anything like that.
Yes, I have said that all things are made of the same thing.
Don't come to me if that disturbs you, go talk to QM! Even classical physics alluded to this.
Otherwise, on the more 'limited' level of our immediately present Reality, I have never even implied what you are arguing.
For us to converse, you have to dump your preconceived biases and simply be mindful. You need not agree, of course, but it would be nice if, after all this work, you are at least hearing what I'm saying so you can 'refute' the right things, if you can.
One can pan out and claim that everything is fairly homogeneous. Or one can observe in greater detail and appreciate the layers and variety of reality. I have debated this with numerous people because "all is illusion" is, aside from ad hominem attacks, my greatest irritation on philosophy sites. Basically the attitude says "you lot are talking rubbish because it's all the same illusion". I could not disagree more.
Ah, now we're getting to the source of all that toxic blinding bias...
Thing is, how can one learn if they dismiss book learning as illusion? Doesn't that mean they will increasingly focus on internal rather than external dynamics until they basically disappear into their own torus?
There is so much that can be written in response to this, but it seems to me that it is straying from the subject at hand.
"Dismiss book learning"? Is that what you think that I'm saying? Have I said that illusion must be dismissed? Especially after I said that everything exists, that Reality is all inclusive?!
Some day we can discuss exactly what 'learning' (and 'free-will/choice') means in a Holistic, motionless, timeless, unchanging, synchronous momentary Reality!
Or if it can have any meaning at all.
While we are at it, you can clearly define the boundary between 'internal' and 'external'.
The inside of your eyelids?
If so, 'internal' and 'external' are merely two mutually arising Perspectives of One and the same Reality!
The same thing; your 'internal' is my 'external'.

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

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

Post by Namelesss » December 22nd, 2017, 5:44 am

Besides, is this not the 'metaphysical' site?
Yes, we all step in poop but this is not the poop removal/shoe repair site, this is the 'ignorance removal' site; this where people come seeking the 'larger picture', no? That is what 'metaphysics' is all about, the 'ultimately largest picture'!
Thus my 'offerings' here, in a very generous spirit of the 'metaphysical'.
On the metaphysical site.
Like bringing food to a soup-line.
Not everyone can appreciate my chili. *__-

(If you are concerned with day to day pragmatic matters, so is everyone else, more or less, you don't need me to reflect that back to you. And, again, this is not the 'day to day pragmatic matters' site, so I discuss the metaphysical.)

Tamminen
Posts: 723
Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm

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

Post by Tamminen » December 22nd, 2017, 9:55 am

Nameless:
...In the Zen state, the thoughtless state...
And wordless. You use words as Koans, I think. Am I right? Do you think it works? You wish that everybody could see the light, and that is fine.

User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2010
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

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

Post by Hereandnow » December 22nd, 2017, 10:57 am

Namelessness:
Sure;
Definition.
Logic.
Science.
Experience.
But that is just what I mean. There is no argument here. I could say exactly the opposite of what you have said, completely disagree with all of it, and I could sight as justification exactly those words. I could be a logical positivist and say, "you want proof? Definition. Logic ...." You see my point?

But if you could start not with conclusions, but with reasoning. For example, I think there is justification for believing consciousness has its grounding in someting far greater than meets the eye if the eye is no more than what has been pejoratively called the naturalistic perspective. My thoughts begin with an examination of everyday experience. The whole of philosophical interest can be found in the simple perceptual act of observing this cup on my desk.

And then I begin with an examination of this cup and my knowledge relation to it, the ontological claims implicit, and so on, and so on.

So where do YOU begin?

Gertie
Posts: 597
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

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

Post by Gertie » December 22nd, 2017, 11:29 am

erk wrote:
December 18th, 2017, 1:25 pm
A theory is ontologically committed to those entities which must exist in order for the theory to work.

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

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

Does this mean we're ontologically committed to the existence (and mind-independence) of possible worlds?
No. As you say 'possible worlds' is a tool, a sort of metaphorical thought experiment, which can help us think through some types of questions. The metaphor doesn't need to exist independent of mind for it to do this job, and we have a variety of tools we can apply to thinking about and testing the existence of possible worlds, though they might lie beyond those tools.

Gertie
Posts: 597
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

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

Post by Gertie » December 22nd, 2017, 11:47 am

Hereandnow wrote:
December 20th, 2017, 2:54 pm
I wonder, Wayne92587 or Nameless, if you could help me out: What is the basis for calling something an illusion? Free of jargon, that is.
I'll have a go.

We establish a working consensus on what is real/true/mind-independent and what is illusory, by sharing and comparing our observations and thereby creating a shared/objective model of the world and how it works. We use this as a basis for identifying things which don't fit our shared model as illusions.

Of course a list of caveats have to accompany that consensus (minds are limited and 'designed' by evolution for utility), but it's useful enough to do a job for us. For example alert us that if someone is hearing voices no-one else hears, we should investigate a brain problem, rather than assume the voices are god or the devil or aliens or whatever.

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

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

Post by Namelesss » December 23rd, 2017, 5:50 am

Tamminen wrote:
December 22nd, 2017, 9:55 am
Nameless:
...In the Zen state, the thoughtless state...
And wordless.

In a way, yes, and in a way, no.
(That's why people want to slap philosophers! *__- )
Yes, in the duality of 'thought', thought/ego and language are the same thing.
You use words as Koans, I think. Am I right?

But I have experienced spontaneous speech, no 'thought' involved; no 'reason', no 'why' did I say that, the mouth just opens (the fingers just type) and there is speech. Any why's and wherefor's are beyond me.
So, in a way, that would be 'Zen speech', and yes, koans, metaphor, whatever tradition is most meaningful.
I'm starting to feel funny, straying so far from the topic. Waiting to be reprimanded... *__-
Do you think it works?

Makes no difference. I have no 'choice' in the matter. I write as I must.
I Know that we all get exactly as we need, every moment. So I need to say this crap, and y'all who hear need to hear it.
Some perceive 'needed' thoughts about it, others will 'need' to dismiss (for the moment).
I do Know that the Universe is balanced perfection, and that all in it are features of that perfection, so again, there is no 'wasted moments'.
If I need to say this, someone needs to hear it.
Ipso facto! *__-

Reminds me of F.W. Robertson's;
"Do what you Know to be right, say what you Know to be true, and leave with Faith and Patience the consequences to God!" (Or Nature, or the Universe... )
You wish that everybody could see the light, and that is fine.
Nah, stopped wishing at 3 or so. When all the wishes don't stop the beatings, reality seemed to favor the pain.
As I said, I (we) have no 'choice' in any of this.
I just play my part.
Like us all.
So many Pinocchio's imagining ourselves to be real little boys... *__-

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

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

Post by Namelesss » December 23rd, 2017, 6:10 am

Hereandnow wrote:
December 22nd, 2017, 10:57 am
Namelessness: Responding to the question;
"I wonder, can you ... tell me how it is you know there is a one all inclusive reality?"

~~~ Sure;
Definition.
Logic.
Science.
Experience.

There's the distillate. I'd be happy to provide a 'thumbnail' of any that you like.
But that is just what I mean. There is no argument here. I could say exactly the opposite of what you have said, completely disagree with all of it, and I could sight as justification exactly those words. I could be a logical positivist and say, "you want proof? Definition. Logic ...." You see my point?

There is no 'argument'. You inquired as to my 'experiences' in support of my statement.
I gave them to you.
There is a logical experience, scientific experience, etc...
Should I have listed every thought train, every epiphany, every revelation, all the original thought, all the research, all the experience before getting to the 'punch line'?
I offered the fine wine first.
If it interests you, I can elaborate, but my experience/Knowledge is not refutable. You cannot just idly gainsay what I offer, or you'll be left by the philosophical/scientific roadside, up on blocks, before you can blink!
Did you miss the part where I offered to elucidate if you liked? Not to waste my time, of course, but an honest question is rarely turned away.
But if you could start not with conclusions, but with reasoning.

Nope. A waste of time.
Too many times I have crafted a response for hours only to have it predominately ignored while the other person blithers on and on about his mundane egoic needs.
So I offer the strong drink. I find that it tends to weed out some, and attract others.
The whole of philosophical interest can be found in the simple perceptual act of observing this cup on my desk.
Nonsense!
A cockroach can observe your cup!
An amoeba!
A dust mote.
You call that philosophy?
But that's another topic! *__-
So where do YOU begin?
We do not 'begin'.
We and the Universe come into being together!

Post Reply