Do we have to say possible worlds exist concretely?
- erk
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 8
- Joined: December 10th, 2017, 7:54 am
Do we have to say possible worlds exist concretely?
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?
-
- Posts: 499
- Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am
-
- Posts: 1780
- Joined: January 27th, 2012, 9:32 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Hermese Trismegistus
Re: Do we have to say possible worlds exist concretely?
The second World of Reality being an Illusion, a misconception of the Truth.
The difficulty in understanding, is that an Illusion is a Reality.
Suffering born of Illusion is an affect, Unnecessary, Suffering born of cause and effect being necessary.
-
- Posts: 499
- Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am
Re: Do we have to say possible worlds exist concretely?
Perhaps... if 'cause' and 'effect' weren't the illusion.Wayne92587 wrote: ↑December 20th, 2017, 6:25 amSuffering born of Illusion is an affect, Unnecessary, Suffering born of cause and effect being necessary.
-
- Posts: 1780
- Joined: January 27th, 2012, 9:32 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Hermese Trismegistus
Re: Do we have to say possible worlds exist concretely?
The World of today is mostly Reality with whole lot of Illusion thrown in.
The synonym thrown; to confuse.
Thrown; to be put on or off hastily. carelessly
- Hereandnow
- Posts: 2839
- Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars
Re: Do we have to say possible worlds exist concretely?
-
- Posts: 1780
- Joined: January 27th, 2012, 9:32 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Hermese Trismegistus
Re: Do we have to say possible worlds exist concretely?
An Illusion is a priori knowledge of Reality, absolutely Bad knowledge that is mistaken to be absolutely Good Knowledge.
An Illusion is born of the Rational Mind, is a Rationalization, is duplicitous,.
An Illusion is a creation, is an original product of the mind.
Look up the word rationalization and you will get a better understanding of Illusion.
An Illusion can not exist if not mistaken to be a Reality.
If not mistaken to be a Reality an Illusion is just so much, babble, gibberish.
An Illusion is born of guile-fullness, is duplicitous, deceptive, is a lie.
An Illusion the knowledge of a Reality that can not be experience.
An Illusion is Absolutely Bad knowledge, can not, does not even exist as a Illusion, unless mistaken to be a Reality. Absolutely Good knowledge.
To say that Good can not exist without Evil, is an Illusion, is a Reality, as long as your are Talking about priori Reality which can not be experienced, has a dual quality, Absolutely Bad Knowledge mistaken to be Absolutely Good Knowledge, is a creation, is an original product of the Mind, the Rational Mind, Rationalization, Illusion.
In the story of Eve in the Garden, Eve was beguiled, attained Absolutely Bad Knowledge, having a duel quality, the knowledge of Good and Evil, Priori Knowledge being gleaned from a single source.
Rationalization, the Knowledge of Good and Evil, being a creation, an original product of the Mind, the Rational Mind.
-
- Posts: 499
- Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am
Re: Do we have to say possible worlds exist concretely?
When I use the term 'illusion', it is in reference to the 'fact' that the world that we perceive at any moment is not an accurate representation of Universal Reality.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.
The 'world' that exists in/as 'thoughts' is necessarily a 'duality'. That is the illusion, that Reality really is a 'duality'.
Perhaps a 'delusion' if one actually 'believes' the thoughts/ego to be an accurate representation, and the thoughts of others that see differently, are 'wrong'. All 'illusion'.
Actually, all Reality is, in that nature, an illusion, 'Mindstuff', 'information waves' that we, like monitors, reflect as 'The World' (tm), 'make-believe'.
All that can ever be perceived (all that exists) is the One Reality/Truth, it just is not like the unique bit that we can, at any moment, perceive.
Lots of words... "To speak is to lie!" Words are thought are duality, the tool used to Know/experience Our Monality.
- Hereandnow
- Posts: 2839
- Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars
Re: Do we have to say possible worlds exist concretely?
Now that is a good one. The others, well, too thick, like a jungle of questions attached to each.Nameless:
"To speak is to lie!"
But to speak is to lie. It's simple and invites inquiry: what is it about speaking that is lying? Is there something about language itself that carries the lie such that even in these words I write, I am putting illusion into play? To talk about lying implies that there is some (hopefully unproblematic) assumption regarding truth telling, otherwise 'lying' would make no sense at all, as with an up without a down. So, what is it that is in this implicit claim about what is true, real, non-illusory; some sort of indubitable bedrock of truth telling? Is it altogether wrong to speak of such a bedrock? Some say it is. If it is, then where does that put any claim about what is illusory? If not, then what is it and how do you confirm it to be foundational?
- Hereandnow
- Posts: 2839
- Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars
Re: Do we have to say possible worlds exist concretely?
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15155
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Do we have to say possible worlds exist concretely?
If I met any of you people in person, what is the difference between me perceiving you as a human or perceiving you as a Reptilian infiltrator in disguise? Each is technically an "illusion", as per the thread's usage. Should we parse these "illusions" or consider them to be equally true?
-
- Posts: 499
- Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am
Re: Do we have to say possible worlds exist concretely?
Yes, a jungle of questions for someone who reads it, finds meaning, and can formulate the questions.Hereandnow wrote: ↑December 21st, 2017, 4:10 pmNow that is a good one. The others, well, too thick, like a jungle of questions attached to each.Nameless:
"To speak is to lie!"
I offer the 'distillate' that might have taken 'centuries' at which to arrive, Occam's razor and all that trims a 'bible' into a haiku!
I am always happy to answer questions/elucidate and help with blazing trails through that 'jungle'. *__-
Sure, language is 'thought/ego'.But to speak is to lie. It's simple and invites inquiry: what is it about speaking that is lying?
Thought/ego/language is predicated on 'duality'; this, not that. A word, for instance, means 'this', not that. Etc.
But ego/duality is only a tool (the conditional, contextual) by which we can Know/experience the ultimate Reality of the One (unconditional, non-contextual, transcendental, unlimited, indefinable, Universal...), Omni- Self!!
Schizophrenia is the fragmentation of that which is One.
So; if we 'believe' thoughts/feelings (feelings are thoughts), we have entered insanity. If we believe that the tool by which Reality/Self is Known is (ultimate) Reality, we err. (Yet even that erring, false, wrong, lying... thought, is an inherent (conditional) feature of Reality, Our unconditional Omni- nature.
Thus the 'lie' aspect of all thought/ego', and the language that expresses it.
If we take all as metaphor, everything perceived, from rocks at our feet to daydreams, we do well.
Literalists remain clueless, but the 'superficial' must also be Known for Us to be Omni-scient!
As I have mentioned, (t)here exists One Universal Consciousness (that peeks from all eyes).Is there something about language itself that carries the lie such that even in these words I write, I am putting illusion into play? To talk about lying implies that there is some (hopefully unproblematic) assumption regarding truth telling, otherwise 'lying' would make no sense at all, as with an up without a down. So, what is it that is in this implicit claim about what is true, real, non-illusory; some sort of indubitable bedrock of truth telling? Is it altogether wrong to speak of such a bedrock? Some say it is. If it is, then where does that put any claim about what is illusory? If not, then what is it and how do you confirm it to be foundational?
We are all unique Perspectives of the One unchanging, ALL inclusive Consciousness/Reality/Truth... Universe.
When we ignore all the Perspectives of the One Truth but our own, and fall into the toxic Aristotelian notion of 'either/or', 'right' or 'wrong', in such limited truncated context, we can have 'true' and 'false'.
2+2=4 is true only in very limited context, such as only in the base ten system. In a base three system, 2+2=4 would be a false statement.
Without knowing the context, the statement is both true and false and maybe, etc... all at the same time.
Opposite Perspective APPEAR as conflict, problematic, lies...
Consider the implications and meaning of Guinon's quote;
"Every kind of partial and transitory disequilibrium must perforce contribute towards the great equilibrium of the whole!" - Rene' Guenon
Words/thoughts present the 'apparent' "partial and transitory disequilibrium"; dualism, because we do not see the larger picture, the "equilibrium of the whole".
Understanding/Knowing of the Perfection/Balance, at any moment of existence, of the Universe, one is less likely to fall for 'appearances' presented by the tool by which Self! is Known.
"The complete Universe (Reality/Truth/God/'Self!'/Tao/Brahman... or any feature herein...) can be completely defined/described as the synchronous sum-total of all Perspectives!" - n
ALL INCLUSIVE!!!
tat tvam asi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tat_Tvam_Asi)
-
- Posts: 499
- Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am
Re: Do we have to say possible worlds exist concretely?
All that is ever perceived, can only be the One all inclusive Truth/Reality!Greta wrote: ↑December 21st, 2017, 6:17 pm Our sensory filtering renders our thoughts and perceptions incomplete. Is the incomplete necessarily illusory? How directly are our "illusions" based on external reality?
If I met any of you people in person, what is the difference between me perceiving you as a human or perceiving you as a Reptilian infiltrator in disguise? Each is technically an "illusion", as per the thread's usage. Should we parse these "illusions" or consider them to be equally true?
To parse is to lie! *__-
It can be fun, can be informative... but is never to be 'believed'!
If you perceive me as a human, that just means that; from your momentary Perspective, the bit of Reality that you perceive as me is, in your perceived thoughts, human.
If you perceive me as a reptilian, that just means that; from your momentary Perspective, the bit of Reality that you perceive as me is, in your perceived thoughts, a reptilian.
There is nothing that follows; I Am that I Am/We Are that We Are! Not I am a this or that, you perceive me as a 'this' or 'that'.
See; E-Prime;
TOWARD UNDERSTANDING E -PRIME
Robert Anton Wilson
http://www.nobeliefs.com/eprime.htm
E-Prime Tutorial
http://www.angelfire.com/nd/danscorpio/ep2.html/
The notion of 'true' perception vs 'false' is irrelevant in the larger picture.
All that is to be perceived, is (ultimately) the One all inclusive Truth! *__-
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15155
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Do we have to say possible worlds exist concretely?
Yet to not parse is to misrepresent. One would think that the size of the lie or misrepresentation matters.Namelesss wrote: ↑December 21st, 2017, 9:09 pmAll that is ever perceived, can only be the One all inclusive Truth/Reality!Greta wrote: ↑December 21st, 2017, 6:17 pm Our sensory filtering renders our thoughts and perceptions incomplete. Is the incomplete necessarily illusory? How directly are our "illusions" based on external reality?
If I met any of you people in person, what is the difference between me perceiving you as a human or perceiving you as a Reptilian infiltrator in disguise? Each is technically an "illusion", as per the thread's usage. Should we parse these "illusions" or consider them to be equally true?
To parse is to lie! *__-
I understand that you are aiming to be "above" all this, and there is no doubt that we are effectively Flatlanders living in a 3D realm on the surface of an oblate spheroid that is smoother than a billiard ball. In that we are the same. But reality does not exist only from the cosmic perspective; it is fractal in nature, and each layer is just as real as any other.
But to dismiss everything as equally illusory is to dismiss everything per se, in which we are stuck in a pointless, illusory life that was never worth living in the first place. Why go through all that if everything is just illusory, and thus pointless and meaningless? Such a view can only lead to antinatalism, the notion that it would be better for everyone if life never happened. I consider that view to be more of an expression of dissatisfaction with life than a valid observation, which is how I see the "all is illusion" wholesale dismissal of modernism.
-
- Posts: 499
- Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am
Re: Do we have to say possible worlds exist concretely?
Of course it 'matters' (all 'mattering/meaning' existing in the thoughts/ego of the beholder) in the limited contexts in which we spend what we imagine to be our lives.
I understand that you are aiming to be "above" all this,
I cannot go shopping without playing the ego game, nor can I write these things to you without playibng the ego/thought game.
I understand the nature of the game, I Know better.
Not 'aiming' for anything.
and there is no doubt that we are effectively Flatlanders living in a 3D realm on the surface of an oblate spheroid that is smoother than a billiard ball. In that we are the same. But reality does not exist only from the cosmic perspective; it is fractal in nature, and each layer
is just as real as any other.
Reality/Truth is ALL inclusive, though explaining that to your math teacher after missing an equation won't help.
All subsets that comprise the One Set are 'conditional'. That is how we generally experience what we think of as 'life'!
But to dismiss everything as equally illusory is to dismiss everything per se, in which we are stuck in a pointless, illusory life that was never worth living in the first place.
Nope!
Knowing that this apple is essentially some 'information waves/Mindstuff', not 'material' at all, Knowing that the weight is more perceived 'information waves', that the 'smell' and 'texture' and 'taste' and 'fart, and the whole recycle thing, etc... is just more 'information waves perceived, seems not to interfere with the feelings of joy and gratitude and 'fullness'/relief perceived!
I can enjoy a movie like anyone else, laugh and weep, but, I do understand it's 'illusory' nature.
Much suffering is associated with those who do not understand the nature of their thoughts/ego and Reality!
Ask Buddha! *__-
2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
2023 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