Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Existence exists subsidiary thread

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

See here, you just missed my clarification entirely.

I answered " I said no such thing" to your question and you are here claiming that I didn't reply. It's telling that others are able to understand what I am saying, and when there is an ambiguity they are able to at least ask the right questions. I don't see the point in discourse with you. When you become relevant I'll respond.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

P.S. Concerning the Universe, it should be clear that it is not definite or specific. It exists, but noone yet knows about the Universe as a specific, identifiable whole. Thus, the Universe is really an incomplete concept.

It occurs to me here that it isn't that existence and universe are incomplete concepts, rather you have an incomplete grasp of how to form them. What you need is an epistemological housecleaning. When you tell me that "You decide. I cannot decide for you, so my job simply amounts to persuasion.", draws the parallel that you need to do your own mental housekeeping, nobody can do it for you as a pseudo live-in maid.

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It occurs to me here that it isn't that existence and universe are incomplete concepts, rather you have an incomplete grasp of how to form them. What you need is an epistemological housecleaning. When you tell me that "You decide. I cannot decide for you, so my job simply amounts to persuasion.", draws the parallel that you need to do your own mental housekeeping, nobody can do it for you as a pseudo live-in maid.

OK. You seem to be quite knowledgeable on the topic of existence, universe, spacetime, and relationships. I have some questions for you.

 

In Lecture 7 (Introduction to Logic), Peikoff states: "So, our goal is to insure that a concept has a firm identity, and the means we employ is to select the essential characteristics of its units. In other words, the fundamental ones, which make those units what they are and differentiate them from everything else. And we then state these essential characteristics in a single statement, and that statement is the definition."

Question 1: What are the units of the concept Universe?

 

"The definiend and the definiendum must be logically equivalent."

Question 2: Is "the Universe is existence" equivalent to "existence is the Universe"?

 

"The other type of concept which you can only define ostensibly is certain fundamental philosophic ones, metaphysical concepts, such as existence, consciousness, entity, action, and so on. Now, in connection with this kind, you are dealing with primaries, irreducible fundamental concepts, and as such you simply cannot break them up or analyze them into constituents . . . And if you want to indicate what you mean by existence, you just have to spin around in a complete circle, waving your hands, and try to indicate to a person you mean everything, all actions, attributes, etc. . . . [Existence] does not tell what the thing basically is. Existence simply tells you that it is. It does not yet say what it is."

 

Question 3: If existence is not a genus, how is it an ostensive, irreducible primary?

Note: By waving your hands you are showing an environment, not the Universe (see different contexts in my Model). A context is a whole, like reality, that does not have fixed boundaries. In other words, a context is nonlinear and may be defined as a specific spacetime. Concepts, such as Cosmos, Nebula, World, Nature, Environment, do not refer to specific objects, nor to entities, actions, or whatever. Contexts can be defined only by a particular kind of relationships.

 

"I certainly don't believe that relationship is irreducible because relationship is simply two entities which you focus on simultaneously" (my emphasis).

 

Question 4: Does it mean that any two people in a market, a store, or a public transport, are in a relationship? What does "focus on simultaneously" imply that is reducible (or not)?

 

"I do not believe time, for instance, is an ostensive irreducible primary. You can define time the same as space."

 

Question 5: So, is time not ostensive as space or is time reducible because time is the same as space? Is space reducible? (Please do not answer the question by stating that space can be defined the same as time.)

 

edit: corrected an error

Note: all quotes from Peikoff's presentation on logic (lecture 7).

Edited by Ilya Startsev
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK. You seem to be quite knowledgeable on the topic of existence, universe, spacetime, and relationships. I have some questions for you.

If the right questions lead to the right answers, where might the wrong questions lead?

 

There are two questions involved in every conclusion or decision you make: What do you know? -  and: How do you know it? It is the task of {the science of} epistemology to provide the answer to the “How?” – which then enables the special sciences {such as physics} to provide the answers to the “What?” [iTOE2 pg. 87, paraphrased.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To elaborate on the implications of my last post, you state: "the niverse is really an incomplete concept."

What is it that constitutes, or is/are the objective criteria for, a complete concept? (For "universe" in particular, but even better would be for any concept in general.)

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To elaborate on the implications of my last post, you state: "the niverse is really an incomplete concept."

What is it that constitutes, or is/are the objective criteria for, a complete concept? (For "universe" in particular, but even better would be for any concept in general.)

A concept is based on objective knowledge that ultimately refers, by means of directly corresponding units, to concretes or their relationships. A definition of a concept must include a genus and a differentiating description. A concept obviously needs a word. That's epistemology for you. I love Objectivist epistemology, so I have no qualms with you on it. What I am particularly concerned with is the "what" part. And, specifically, on your view of objects and contexts. In my view, objects and contexts are inseparable distinctions. You cannot say that a context is merely an object or vice versa. Objective reality is objects and their relationships. That is, reality is not only an object; reality is a context where some particular objects necessarily exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 In my view, objects and contexts are inseparable distinctions. You cannot say that a context is merely an object or vice versa.

OBJECTS:

Crow

Sea turtles

Penguins

Humans

Ostrich

Giraffe

Cow

Wolf

Wales

Oak Tree

Corn

Lizard

Coal

 

 

CONTEXT:

Which of the above are:

Living

Bipedal

Four legged

Plants

Animals

Mammals

Warm Blooded

Rational

Opposable Thumbs

Capable of flight

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OBJECTS:

Crow

Sea turtles

Penguins

Humans

Ostrich

Giraffe

Cow

Wolf

Wales

Oak Tree

Corn

Lizard

Coal

 

 

CONTEXT:

Which of the above are:

Living

Bipedal

Four legged

Plants

Animals

Mammals

Warm Blooded

Rational

Opposable Thumbs

Capable of flight

None of the objects you mentioned are contexts (except of the dual interpretation of coal). Your "context" is not a context, but it's a quality/attribute or a genus, which is a collection of objects and thus does not explicitly include a context. A collection of bodies is subsumed under the concept of body, which is an object. Yes, I differentiate nouns from adjectives (even if they are "supposed" to refer to the same thing, but are left unspecified). I will specify collections or whatnot in my following object/context analysis of your suppositions:

 

These are OBJECTS (whether organic or inorganic, but I take the first meaning):

Crow - a body {environment unspecified}

Sea turtles - bodies {environment unspecified}

Penguins - bodies {environment unspecified}

Humans - bodies {environment unspecified}

Ostrich - a body {environment unspecified}

Giraffe - a body {environment unspecified}

Cow - a body {environment unspecified}

Wolf - a body {environment unspecified}

Wales - a society {nature unspecified}

Oak Tree - a collection of tissues {environment and pulse unspecified, meaning: is it cut from environment, fresh, or dried out, considering it is not artificial}

Corn - a collection of tissues {environment and pulse unspecified, same as above}

Lizard - a body {environment unspecified}

Plants - a collection of a collection of tissues {environment and pulse unspecified}

Animals - a collection of bodies {environment unspecified}

Mammals - a collection of bodies {environment unspecified}

 

CONTEXT (or dual interpretation):

Coal - a structure {this can be an object only if it is a part of an environment, say, a coal mine, but the environment here is unspecified; generally, if you are comparing it to molecules, coal will be a context}

 

Miscellaneous. These are neither objects nor contexts and too general to be included in either:

Living - an attribute {the first organic level of Organelle--Cytoplasm unspecified}

Bipedal - an attribute {tissues and body unspecified}

Four legged - an attribute {same as above}

Warm Blooded - an attribute {same as above}

Rational - an attribute {[im]pulse and mind/aura unspecified, although you may automatically specify it by definition, but, in the general meaning, this is an attribute of two unspecified contexts}

Opposable Thumbs - an attribute {tissues unspecified; taken to mean an adjective phrase, since the definition is "capable of grasping..."}

Capable of flight - an attribute {same as above}

 

EDIT: If an attribute is kept unspecified, I will consider it a context, namely, thought qua thought (a [im]pulse as a part of mind).

Edited by Ilya Startsev
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm asking you to group the top list of objects into the bottom list of categories by determining which characteristic is contextually essential.

 

Edit:  You are using the word "context" incorrectly as related to Objectivist epistemology.

Edited by New Buddha
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm asking you to group the top list of objects into the bottom list of categories by determining which characteristic is contextually essential.

 

Edit:  You are using the word "context" incorrectly as related to Objectivist epistemology.

Then you are telling me to connect objects to attributes. That is, to specify attributes by reference to objects. I have used "context" as it is, but you ignore actual contexts. You think that context is merely an attribute - "contextual." I have already shown that attributes are not merely objects. (So, the Universe is not merely contextual, but existential as an actual context.) OK, I will specify the categories (i.e., attributes) by what objects can be their referents.

 

Living (in the sense of organic) - crow, sea turtles, penguins, humans, ostrich, giraffe, cow, wolf, oak tree, corn, lizard. Wales is not essentially living (but not dead as after apocalypse), although it includes living organisms. Bipedal - crow, penguins, humans, ostrich. Four legged - sea turtles, giraffe, cow, wolf. Plants - oak tree, corn. Animals - crow, sea turtles, penguins, humans, ostrich, giraffe, cow, wolf, lizard. Mammals - humans, giraffe, cow, wolf. Warm Blooded - crow, penguins, humans, ostrich, giraffe, cow, wolf. Rational - humans. Opposable Thumbs - humans. Capable of flight - crow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As you note 'crow' can have numerous definitions.  A crow is living. A crow is capable of flight.  A crow is warm blooded.  A crow is bipedal. Etc. No one definition (characteristic) is more essential than any other except for the given context under consideration.

 

 

While this seems straight forward to you, if you understood how other philosophers justify their solutions to the problem, it would help you understand the uniqueness of Objectivism.  If you were to ask Plato, Aristotle, Parmenides, Democritus, Hume, Kant, Thomas, Occam, Berkeley, Pierce, James, Descartes, Hegel, Marx, etc. etc. etc. they would all give you a different answer as to HOW and WHY you can solve the problems of identification and classification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As you note 'crow' can have numerous definitions.  A crow is living. A crow is capable of flight.  A crow is warm blooded.  A crow is bipedal. Etc. No one definition (characteristic) is more essential than any other except for the given context under consideration.

 

 

While this seems straight forward to you, if you understood how other philosophers justify their solutions to the problem, it would help you understand the uniqueness of Objectivism.  If you were to ask Plato, Aristotle, Parmenides, Democritus, Hume, Kant, Thomas, Occam, Berkeley, Pierce, James, Descartes, Hegel, Marx, etc. etc. etc. they would all give you a different answer as to HOW and WHY you can solve the problems of identification and classification.

Like I said, I accept Objectivist epistemology, and I am going to read Kant, for sure. But why can't a crow be all of those attributes at the same time? A crow can fly, it is alive, has warm blood and two legs. Why would you break apart the crow based on his attributes? I understand that no attribute can be apart from the object it is describing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said, I accept Objectivist epistemology, and I am going to read Kant, for sure. But why can't a crow be all of those attributes at the same time? A crow can fly, it is alive, has warm blood and two legs. Why would you break apart the crow based on his attributes? I understand that no attribute can be apart from the object it is describing.

A crow is all those things at the same time.  But thinking is not just the equivalent of owing a dictionary.  You are creating propositions, constructing models, solving complex problems.  You need to condense enormous concepts, such as 'crow', into something manageable.

 

If I ask you, "Do you like American football better than soccer?"  I don't have to list every single thing that I know about "football" and "soccer" to construct the question.  And you don't need to run through your mind every single thing you know about both sports.  You will know what I mean and answer immediately.

 

Same way if I ask you, "Do you like any sports?"  I don't have to list every single sport that exists on the planet to construct the sentence.  And you don't need to write down list of all sports you know and then determine if you like any of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A crow is all those things at the same time.  But thinking is not just the equivalent of owing a dictionary.  You are creating propositions, constructing models, solving complex problems.  You need to condense enormous concepts, such as 'crow', into something manageable.

 

If I ask you, "Do you like American football better than soccer?"  I don't have to list every single thing that I know about "football" and "soccer" to construct the question.  And you don't need to run through your mind every single thing you know about both sports.  You will know what I mean and answer immediately.

 

Same way if I ask you, "Do you like any sports?"  I don't have to list every single sport that exists on the planet to construct the sentence.  And you don't need to write down list of all sports you know and then determine if you like any of them.

You correctly identified that there can be infinitely many things said about each concept, such as crow, sports, etc. How is it that we condense them so efficiently? We know them because of their contexts, and our minds are contexts and context-condensers that help with this task. We operate our minds as fields with our consciousness. The mental contents are our landscape of thoughts--out rational faculties and fields of awareness are contextual. So, we know that a crow is always a crow by its nature and identity because a crow lives within his environment, which we saved in our minds as a contextual concept. It does not matter what you say about the crow -- it will still be that crow within an environment. Surely, scientists can come up with other contexts to learn more about the nature of a crow, but philosophically it is enough to know that a crow is a body within an environment. I deem that my way of understanding concepts is most efficient when you identify them by their real contexts. You might have grasped this fact implicitly, but the idea of a firm, identifying context is missing from your explicit awareness. You choose to ignore it, but without it you cannot operate or think the way you do.

 

edit: corrected an error

Edited by Ilya Startsev
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My belief:

0 -> 1 -> 2

nothing -> existence/everything -> something (elements of the model)

Your knowledge (?):

0 -> 1

existence/everything -> something (Reason -> Life)

The metaphysical/general difference is where we place the starting point. Since I place the starting point earlier than the starting point of Objectivists, Objectivist thinking can be a part of my own. However, my own thinking cannot be a part of Objectivism. Although both everything and nothing were in the beginning, the illustration can be traced with only one, so only one can be chosen.

 

And in the light of Krauss, contexts, and logic:

Only if nothing is everything, is everything something.

Axiomatic reasoning:

Using the square of opposition, we convert the above statement to:

(1) Only if (All S is not P) is (All S is P), (All S is P) is (Some S is P).

(2) Only if supercontrary(E is A), superimplication(A is I).

(3) If A is I, then E is A.

In axiomatic form:

(4) If EXISTENCE is IDENTITY, then NONEXISTENCE is EXISTENCE.

From superimplication of (2): If EXISTENCE is TRUE, then IDENTITY is TRUE.

EXISTENCE is TRUE, therefore IDENTITY is TRUE.

(5) (EXISTENCE is IDENTITY) is TRUE

From (1) and (4): Only if NONEXISTENCE is EXISTENCE

From supercontrary of (2): EXISTENCE is TRUE, therefore NONEXISTENCE is FALSE

(6) However, Only if {NONEXISTENCE (FALSE) is EXISTENCE (UNDET.)} is TRUE

OR: Only if {NONEXISTENCE (UNDET.) is EXISTENCE (TRUE)} is FALSE

From the necessary premise (5), (6) is a necessary conclusion, and EXISTENCE cannot prove or disprove (NONEXISTENCE is EXISTENCE).

Therefore, (NONEXISTENCE is EXISTENCE) is also an axiom.

By Godel's completeness theorem: (5) is consistent, (4) is complete.

(5) or (4) is a weak disjunction. If (5) is TRUE, then (4) can be chosen TRUE or FALSE, but only if (4) is FALSE, (5) must be TRUE.

EXISTENCE is IDENTITY, Only if NONEXISTENCE is EXISTENCE

Q.E.D.

Then herein we have no more disagreements. The above statement is the result of this thread, which spans 315 posts. It was an enormous effort, and I want to thank all of the involved and congratulate you with helping derive this new insight, for we all held strong throughout the discussion and neither you nor me have given up our original views. Thank you.

The recap of reintegrations:

I. The Reintegration of Ethics:

   1. The Oath of Neo-Objectivism: "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will always live for my own sake."

   2. The Theory of Relations: 1) body, 2) consciousness, 3) relationships.

 

II. The Reintegration of Politics:

   The Theory of Emotional Economy

III. The Reintegration of Epistemology:

   The Theory of Nested Concepts: x = Sensation + Perception + Conception

IV. The Reintegration of Metaphysics:

   EXISTENCE is IDENTITY, Only if NONEXISTENCE is EXISTENCE

Edited by Ilya Startsev
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consider this: If neurotics could build castles in the sky, then psychotics could live in them, OCD'ers could clean them, and psychologists could collect the rent.

 

If you ever discover what nothing is (philosophically, not metaphorically), then you should understand why it is not something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consider this: If neurotics could build castles in the sky, then psychotics could live in them, OCD'ers could clean them, and psychologists could collect the rent.

 

If you ever discover what nothing is (philosophically, not metaphorically), then you should understand why it is not something.

1) First consider the axiomatic and noncontradictory nature of my statement.

2) Then consider that E (nothing) and I (something) are contradictory. Logically, E and I should not be connected directly.

3) Now, consider that "nothing" is ~95% of matter and energy in the Universe. The observable Universe is proportionally less than what could be in vacuum but that we cannot perceive. What is nothing?

Edited by Ilya Startsev
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rand and Peikoff both present why existence, identity and consciousness are axiomatic and that the axioms are reaffirmed in any attempt to deny them. (Aristotle's reaffirmation through denial.)

 

Am I supposed to pretend that you are appealing with reason here? I've already pointed out that "I've grown weary of discussing the "what" with you when the "how" is adhered to in such an ad hoc manner."

 

What you are presenting is a thinly disguised version of the  "reification of the zero." (see ITOE, toward the end of Chapter 6).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only if nothing is everything, is everything something.

Would this be one of those forms of logic that allow anything to proceed from a lie?  There are deductive systems that would allow "I am God because the Earth is flat" to be a true statement on the basis that the Earth would be flat if I were God (and any other causal relation conceivable so long as it's presumed to be counterfactual).  Is that the gimmick here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3) Now, consider that "nothing" is ~95% of matter and energy in the Universe. The observable Universe is proportionally less than what could be in vacuum but that we cannot perceive. What is nothing?

Isn't it cute how one can fail to understand pop science and derive a philosophy from that lack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Objectivism says nothing about physics or cosmology - which is ALL that Krauss covered on the video.  I watched the full video and it was wonderful.

By the way, whether or not something can come from nothing is a philosophical question, not a physics question.

Isn't it cute how one can fail to understand pop science and derive a philosophy from that lack.

How do you understand Krauss and modern physics?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I supposed to pretend that you are appealing with reason here? I've already pointed out that "I've grown weary of discussing the "what" with you when the "how" is adhered to in such an ad hoc manner."

ad hoc (adjective): concerned or dealing with a specific subject, purpose, or end

Existence is something specific. You consider me "jumping" in such a manner as to achieve a physical understanding of everything. Please give me an instance (or example) of what you think I am doing is wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please give me an instance (or example) of what you think I am doing is wrong.

"Nothing is everything" is ambiguous (in the same way and for the same reasons that "something is everything" is), but could mean something true; it could mean that an orange, for example, is not the only thing that exists.

However, the ambiguity vanishes when you use it to 'derive':  "EXISTENCE is IDENTITY, Only if NONEXISTENCE is EXISTENCE"

 

Let's assume that whatever you sincerely mean whatever that is, in order to simplify matters.  What does it literally mean?

 

"Freedom is slavery and war is peace" (which is a reference to the novel 1984).

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Nothing is everything" is ambiguous (in the same way and for the same reasons that "something is everything" is), but could mean something true; it could mean that an orange, for example, is not the only thing that exists.

However, the ambiguity vanishes when you use it to 'derive':  "EXISTENCE is IDENTITY, Only if NONEXISTENCE is EXISTENCE"

 

Let's assume that whatever you sincerely mean whatever that is, in order to simplify matters.  What does it literally mean?

 

"Freedom is slavery and war is peace" (which is a reference to the novel 1984).

By NONEXISTENCE, I mean such contexts as Vacuum and Cosmos (not something, but everything). By (the only-if instance of) EXISTENCE, I mean only the sum of everything (the abstract, metaphysical everything outside of time and space). By EXISTENCE (is IDENTITY), I mean the sum of everything AND something specific. You correctly identified that NONEXISTENCE can be TRUE or FALSE. NONEXISTENCE is UNDEFINED, just as EXISTENCE is in that instance. You may choose this proposition, though, without contradicting your axioms, but you may also not choose it and ignore it without affecting its possible TRUE value. I choose it and am convinced by it, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...