Actual Class Discussion

[sweetnpetite]

I don't think, by acknowleding their possibly being factors, that I give them too much credit. I'm not saying they're the end all be all of anything, only that they may be--that's just logical possibility.

It may be that not everything is cerebral, but it is possible that it is (I think of Locke or Berkeley, in that). Beyond that, though, that some things aren't cerebral doesn't mean that the value of human life isn't knowable via logic--cold, warm, or otherwise.

Joe,

You bring out the violent irational side of myself.

Before I say anything I'm likely to regret, I will duck out of this conversation.

Can you hear yourself? Do you *know* how annoying your constant insistance to what *may* be and so forth is? It may be 'rational' 'logical' and 'factual', but it damn sure aint 'actual' 'practical' or 'real.'

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by sweetnpetite
Joe,

You bring out the violent irational side of myself.

Before I say anything I'm likely to regret, I will duck out of this conversation.

Can you hear yourself? Do you *know* how annoying your constant insistance to what *may* be and so forth is? It may be 'rational' 'logical' and 'factual', but it damn sure aint 'actual' 'practical' or 'real.'

As an example of why its important to not turn a blind eye to the possible:

In 1818, a theorist named Taurrence (don't remember the first name) was a bit like a writer/journalist... mostly social commentary and politics of the time in early American history.

He said something to the effect of "A waste to talk about the mind of any man. We haven't the language for what's inside of someone's mind, we haven't the mechanism to open the mind up and measure and weigh its contents. The philosophers will argue for the hope of theory, for the building of a proposition-machine in their minds, to explain those of others. But no matter the complexity of the thought-machine, nothing can come--short of God's knowing--to calculate the mind and adjust it like a bad mechanic into something good."

Its something I always took to heart... it and a thousand other declaredly "preposterous" notions. The construction of a theory (proposition-machine) to explain and adjust the mind. But, with time, with effort, and with the "hope" of possibility... we have psychology. Its work, and the good its done, would not have come about had the theoretically absurd not been pioneered and approached with cautious reason and logical method (thanks to Bacon).

Some things may be beyond the scope of "proposition machines". But so many things have been thought impossible, before. I find it hard to abandon those "hopes" in other fields, knowing that something can come from them.

Are "secluded geniuses" and "objective norms for society" absurd...? To some extent, yes. Are they worth throwing out because we think we've got it all figured out? I cannot commit myself to that course of action. It may be that one day, we develop as a society to that very point.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

The kids discussion about responsibility in a democracy reminded me of something I'd been thinking lately.

Say you're an Iraqi civilian whose family has been killed by an errant American bomb. Who do you blame for that? Who's responsible? Certainly a big part is Bush's, because he ordered the war. But to what extent are we, as citizens of a democracy, responsible for his actions?

See, in a dictatorship, the dictator is responsible. We say WWII was Hitler's fault, not the German people's. But who's responsible for the war in Iraq

If democracy is government by the people, then aren't we all responsible? And if we are all responsible, then are the attacks of terrorists on civilians so hard to understand?

---dr.M.

 

[BlackShanglan]

First, I have to say ...

Can you hear yourself? Do you *know* how annoying your constant insistance to what *may* be and so forth is? It may be 'rational' 'logical' and 'factual', but it damn sure aint 'actual' 'practical' or 'real.'

Dorian Gray is not actual, practical, or real, nor Jay Gatsby, nor Cuchulain, nor Dracula, nor Victor Frankenstein, nor the Wife of Bath, nor Beowulf. How tedious our world would be if we limited it to the actual, practical, and real. A copy of "Hard Times" and a set of business cards reading "Mr. Gradgrind, Stone Lodge, Coketown" to all who espouse such contempt for the theoretical - whether rational or fanciful.

Gravity, accepting that its real and all that, is an authoritative standard. Its an objective norm. It is a rule that is in metaphysical authority--a position where it isn't under the arbitration of anything else. That's what I mean to say with "authoritative standard".

Ah, now I comprehend you. So you are saying that it is possible for there to be, within the class of things defined as "mind independent and and part of the makeup of the universe," rules that are in metaphysical authority - that is, not under the arbitration of anything else. This would include something like gravity.

What is now not clear to me, and perhaps you can clarify, is how something being "objective" and being a "norm" are different under your definition. That is, aren't your definitions to some extent part of each other? That which is independent of the mind and part of the makeup of the universe being by nature also something that is under no other arbitration? If so, of course, it makes perfect sense than that an objective norm would exist - just not sure what that tells me beyond the meaning of "objective" to start with.

I was typing that while talking to my girl on the phone. b) should read "and norms are standards". Typo on my part, my bad. I was talking about something else entirely while typing. [/B]

All right, but that still leaves us with an enormous b/c jump, no? Now we're moving from believing that some norms - as defined by you, if I am getting this right, as "rules with metaphysical authority" - exist, to assuming that social standards are part of these norms. How did we get there? I see no connection. We're following a pattern of "if A is part of set B <norms are standards>, and C is part of set B <a social system is a standard>, then C is part of set A <social standards could be objective norms>" logic here. That's on par with "cows are mammals, humans are mammals, therefore humans could be cows." They might, but it's hardly waterproof or even especially likely. Beyond that, I'm not seeing either 1) proof that norms are, in fact, standards or 2) [necessary to one] a definition of what you mean by standard.

Can we go there?

Shanglan

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

As an example of why its important to not turn a blind eye to the possible:

In 1818, a theorist named Taurrence (don't remember the first name) was a bit like a writer/journalist... mostly social commentary and politics of the time in early American history.

He said something to the effect of "A waste to talk about the mind of any man. We haven't the language for what's inside of someone's mind, we haven't the mechanism to open the mind up and measure and weigh its contents. The philosophers will argue for the hope of theory, for the building of a proposition-machine in their minds, to explain those of others. But no matter the complexity of the thought-machine, nothing can come--short of God's knowing--to calculate the mind and adjust it like a bad mechanic into something good."

Its something I always took to heart... it and a thousand other declaredly "preposterous" notions. The construction of a theory (proposition-machine) to explain and adjust the mind. But, with time, with effort, and with the "hope" of possibility... we have psychology. Its work, and the good its done, would not have come about had the theoretically absurd not been pioneered and approached with cautious reason and logical method (thanks to Bacon).

Some things may be beyond the scope of "proposition machines". But so many things have been thought impossible, before. I find it hard to abandon those "hopes" in other fields, knowing that something can come from them.

Are "secluded geniuses" and "objective norms for society" absurd...? To some extent, yes. Are they worth throwing out because we think we've got it all figured out? I cannot commit myself to that course of action. It may be that one day, we develop as a society to that very point.

Nice, you exactly pinpointed why I used to be an agnostic. Still carry a bit of that old anything is possible vibe though cause technically everything IS possible, so it all comes down to assessing probabilities.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by BlackShanglan
Ah, now I comprehend you. So you are saying that it is possible for there to be, within the class of things defined as "mind independent and and part of the makeup of the universe," rules that are in metaphysical authority - that is, not under the arbitration of anything else. This would include something like gravity.

WOOOOO! That's it.

What is now not clear to me, and perhaps you can clarify, is how something being "objective" and being a "norm" are different under your definition. That is, aren't your definitions to some extent part of each other? That which is independent of the mind and part of the makeup of the universe being by nature also something that is under no other arbitration? If so, of course, it makes perfect sense than that an objective norm would exist - just not sure what that tells me beyond the meaning of "objective" to start with.

They do blend, don't they? The only way I can reasonably demarcate them is to say that in the matrix of those terms, there are two possibilities for each (objective/subjective and norm/non-norm... "non-norm" being sort of a "without standard" situation).

So:

Objective Norm
Subjective Norm
Objective Not-Norm
Subjective Nont-Norm

ON would be "a standard independant of the mind", its a possible construct, and seems to marry very well (as to, yes, be almost the same thing until we get to SB). I think Logic is a good example of that.

SB would be "a standard dependant on the mind", its a possible construct, and seems to imply that it'd be like what you were saying about "best". It's a standard, for sure, but one based on the mind and the subject having nothing to do with any metaphysical absolutes. Tastiness, beauty... these seem to fit.

OnN would be "a lack of all standard independant of the mind"... hmmm... I suppose it'd be that the universe has no standard for the object. So, if there is actually no "perfect social system" at all in the metaphysic of the universe (but things like Gravity and Math are still there), then it would be an Objective non-Norm.

Subjective Non-Norm... "a lack of all standard, dependant on the mind"... gets harder to nail that one down. Seems to be saying that, dependant on the mind and the person's arbitrary preference. Like to say that even in the subjective worldview, the notion being dealt with is considered arbitrary to the thinker... so there isn't even a personal standard involved. I might have to think about that one further.

I don't think I know any philosophy that deals with SnN-like things.

But, that there can be an OB and an SB is the only real reason I can come up with for having O and B instead of either.

All right, but that still leaves us with an enormous b/c jump, no? Now we're moving from believing that some norms - as defined by you, if I am getting this right, as "rules with metaphysical authority" - exist, to assuming that social standards are part of these norms. How did we get there? I see no connection. We're following a pattern of "if A is part of set B <norms are standards>, and C is part of set B <a social system is a standard>, then C is part of set A <social standards could be objective norms>" logic here. That's on par with "cows are mammals, humans are mammals, therefore humans could be cows." They might, but it's hardly waterproof or even especially likely. Beyond that, I'm not seeing either 1) proof that norms are, in fact, standards or 2) [necessary to one] a definition of what you mean by standard.

I think I would say that all norms are standards and all standards are norms. Going on the matrix above, I think that's justifiable. Because there's still a difference between objective and subjective norms.

Originally posted by Lucifer-Carroll
technically everything IS possible

Not everything. The subject of a logical contradiction is not possible--"round squares".

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Not everything. The subject of a logical contradiction is not possible--"round squares".

False, it's just exceedingly improbable. It is conceivably possible that what we know as logic is a lie to cover a meaningless and entropic universe, or that in truth, what we think of as squareness or roundness qualities are not in actual fact correct. When you expand enough to cover all the possibilities, no matter how improbable, everything becomes in some tiny way possible. It just might require the universe not to be what we think it is (and how many years of quantum physics does someone have to take to realize how easy that is).

Anyway, it's all about the meaning of words. Possible is a broader term than most people are willing to come to grips with.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Lucifer_Carroll
False, it's just exceedingly improbable. It is conceivably possible that what we know as logic is a lie to cover a meaningless and entropic universe, or that in truth, what we think of as squareness or roundness qualities are not in actual fact correct. When you expand enough to cover all the possibilities, no matter how improbable, everything becomes in some tiny way possible. It just might require the universe not to be what we think it is (and how many years of quantum physics does someone have to take to realize how easy that is).

Anyway, it's all about the meaning of words. Possible is a broader term than most people are willing to come to grips with.

I would say that one can't show logic to be non-existant (even possibly non-existant) by using it. No moreso than one can show that glue won't hold a sign to a wall by gluing a sign to the wall that says it.

Possible is a broad term, but its bracketed by necessity on the one hand and impossibility on the other. A round-square, for instance, is a simple logical contradiction... a square by definition is not round, a round thing cannot be a square by definition. One can change the definitions, but then we're not talking about the round-square anymore... we're talking about something else (a thing which may well be possible, as it isn't the round-square).

If a round-square is possible... but in a way devoid of rational coherance, experential confirmation, or conceptual clarity, it doesn't strike me that it is anything more than an utterance. Of, course, I'd love to hear Shanglan's view on that. I think I'm perfectly accurate in this regard, I trust he has a working knowledge of the components sufficient to offer up a supportable view.

Incidentally... big flaw in your position that everything is possible.

If everything is possible, then it is possible that not everything is possible.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Incidentally... big flaw in your position that everything is possible.

If everything is possible, then it is possible that not everything is possible.

Exactly. That's hardly a flaw. Possibility works that way. That's what separates it from logical reality or reasonable probability. It can be an it or a lack of it. What makes it so is the can. Can means things can or can not and a can not does not make the can impossible.

Possibility is not bracketed by neccessity. Rational probability is bracketed by that. And possibility includes impossibility. It's part of what is possible. It's possible that paradoxes are not truly impossibilities. Rational probability and science would disagree, but how can one truly know if the universe knows that, furthermore how can we be sure with purely 100% certainty that the universe wasn't designed to accept and breed paradox, or perhaps it was designed to house paradoxes. If life is a simulation, are paradoxes not imposssible and if there is a possibility no matter how slim that life is a simulation, then does that not mean it falls under the huge sweaty embrace of pure possibility.

In possibility as it stands science and logic are measuring sticks far inadequate. Hell, using the possibilities of belief in modern American culture alone, science is hardly the only tool, same with logic. A possibility that embraces the possibilities of all religions, worldviews, and philosophies must also encompass everything else. All the possible ways of existence to be. Possibility and rational probability are hardly the same at this point. One demands the existance of limits to eliminate the ludicrous, the other accepts everything, any possible outlook, any possible paradox.

In essence it is similar to the famous philosphical exploration done by almost everyone: "Q: So if it's possible that I don't exist outside your mind, how do you know you don't exist outside of mine? A: Maybe I don't"

Anyway, I don't know if any of that got through. Hopefully it did.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Lucifer_Carroll
Exactly. That's hardly a flaw.

If everything is possible, then "not everything is possible" is possible. If the predicate is true, the subject is false and not everything is possible. If the subject is true, then the predicate is true, which makes the subject false.

Hopefully other people are seeing this. I can't find a very polite way to put it... but this, as a proposition being forwarded as true, is entirely meaningless. I'm going to seperate myself from this one, hopefully someone else chimes in on it.

The rest of the stuff... *shakes head*... not gonna bother.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

If everything is possible, then "not everything is possible" is possible. If the predicate is true, the subject is false and not everything is possible. If the subject is true, then the predicate is true, which makes the subject false.

Hopefully other people are seeing this. I can't find a very polite way to put it... but this, as a proposition being forwarded as true, is entirely meaningless. I'm going to seperate myself from this one, hopefully someone else chimes in on it.

Did you even read what I said about paradox or did you just say "Lucifer is ranting again, how best can I ignore him and return to my ivory towers of pure and untainted logic?"


If everything and not everything is possible then truly everything is possible because it covers all possibilities. Take Schroedinger's cat (as much as I hate that philosophic exercise) the cat exists in an uncertain state of possibility until experimental analysis shows it to be one or the other.

A not everything is possible is a subset of everything is possible much like humans are a subset of mammals. It's a possibility among other possibilities.




Heh, this is funny, the chaotician and the logician eye to eye in the land of what could be.

If you want a better idea of what I'm talking about, read Neil Gaiman, any of his works will do. The nature of relaity is always above what the real characters in his stories are willing to accept and so they are always lost in a world where the possible is far above the possible they thought was possible.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

[edited out]

Whatever.

Back to Shanglan.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Whatever.

Not a bad word to live by. Certainly lowers blood pressure.


Hey, as I said above, it's the chaotician and the logician once again dancing around on the threads. A spectacle for the masses signifying nothing.

I agree to disagree (and in another reality we buy a condo together and adopt a Turkish orphan named Paul Donut-Baxter).

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Lucifer_Carroll
Not a bad word to live by. Certainly lowers blood pressure.


Hey, as I said above, it's the chaotician and the logician once again dancing around on the threads. A spectacle for the masses signifying nothing.

I agree to disagree (and in another reality we buy a condo together and adopt a Turkish orphan named Paul Donut-Baxter).

For the sake of being simply honest. Umm... no, its not some "dance". Call yourself whatever you like. I'm not actually agreeing to disagree, I'm agreeing that you've little idea what you're talking about.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

I'm not actually agreeing to disagree, I'm agreeing that you've little idea what you're talking about.

That's great to hear. I think the same about you.

It's good to see us in consensus, isn't it?

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Lucifer_Carroll
That's great to hear. I think the same about you.

It's good to see us in consensus, isn't it?

Whatever helps your self-esteem. I'm going to go back to the other discussion now.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Minor addition:

The main logical fallacy in your attempt to refute me was the following:

The part is the same as the whole.


I don't know what the fancy philosophy term for that fallacy is, but that is what the disagreement was centered on, your pointing out of a logical fallacy was based on a fallacy (that is the assumption that a characteristic refutes the whole deal)


To help you understand, imagine a multiverse where everything is possible. In one universe nothing is possible, in another not everything is possible. These universes are neccessary so that the multiverse contains all possibilities. The characterisitcs of these universes not having everything do not refute the multiverse's characteristics.

If you're still having trouble, read fantasy and sci-fi novels instead of Kant some day. Maybe then you'll get what the hell monsieur moron was babbling about.

 

[poohlive]

I don't have that big of a problem with Cuba actually. They're the only country that's gone on for the past sixty years without America's help. Every other country has asked for aid at one time or another. Seems like Cuba has something that some of them don't.

I'm beginning to feel that way about Saddam too. I mean, say what you will about a dictator who asssasinated his people, but it was a peaceful country before we made out mark. Now, it's in utter chaos, and about to go through a civil war, civil unrest, and many other problems. Saddam kept all his people in check, something Bush with all of his armies and weapons and shit can't do.

In a weird way, I think I'm beginning to admire Saddam. But... like in the same way you admire a serial killer. You know, he's evil, he did wrong, but still, look at the intriquite work, look at the details, look at all he accomplished. You can't just turn your back on that.


As far as round squares go, I don't know Joe. I think you'll need to explain this one better. If everything is possible, then round squares do exist.

I guess it would depend on existence. Can existence only be objective, or rather subjective? Logically, outside of the human thought process, only objective things are possible, but when the mind is involved, especially with how we view the world, we can assume that most things we think of are subjective (not all, but most).

Now, mathematical problems and the like are objective, but shapes can be subjective or objective, in which case, subjectively a round square could exist. Unless I'm not understanding something, which might be true.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by poohlive
As far as round squares go, I don't know Joe. I think you'll need to explain this one better. If everything is possible, then round squares do exist.

Which I why I contend that not everything /is/ possible. Impossible things, by definition, are not possible. A square that is round is not possible because if a square is round, then it isn't a square (straight sides, corners).

Basic, basic, basic logic.

 

[BlackShanglan]

So sorry to have missed Joe's hand-offs for a bit there. I have unfortunately been experiencing the empirical reality of having thrown my back out so badly that I was unable to stand or walk. Nothing persuades one of the clarity and significance of the empircist camp quite like crawling slowly over the floor of the room in a desperate attempt to reply to the call of nature, while having one's face licked by an enormous and very concerned dog and one's foot attacked by a small, irate feline entity.

I'm interested in this debate with Lucifer. I shall do my utmost to annoy both sides by taking a more linguistic approach - although I suppose that to some extent that puts me further into Joe's camp. My point of view on this is that while one may acknowledge infinite physical possiblities in the universe, one cannot allow the universe (a physical entity) the right to undo non-physical constructs not created by the universe (like language). I'd suggest that the question of whether there can be a round square, or a six-legged quadruped, or a pair composed of three items, actually has nothing whatsoever to do with the nature of the universe. It has only to do with whether those terms are compatible in the language we are using to describe what we see. When we say "there is no such thing as a round square," we are talking not so much about the range of possiblities in the universe as we are about the range of possiblities within the term "circle" as our language describes it. We are saying, essentially, that part of our definition of "circle" is "not square," and that if it had square properties, we'd have to call it something else. The universe, in this case, remains infinite and capable of infinite variety; the only thing limited is our own definition of "circle," which only applies to some elements of this infinite set.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming ...

Joe, I'm really enjoying the pleasant mental exercise of a good rigorous examination of definitions, relations, etc. Do let me know if you tire of it, however; I'd hate to end up being tedious. Also, please forgive me if the painkillers I'm currently rather enjoying do anything peculiar to my logic.

SB would be "a standard dependant on the mind", its a possible construct, and seems to imply that it'd be like what you were saying about "best". It's a standard, for sure, but one based on the mind and the subject having nothing to do with any metaphysical absolutes. Tastiness, beauty... these seem to fit.

I think that this brings more light to the topic, although despite this:

I think I would say that all norms are standards and all standards are norms. Going on the matrix above, I think that's justifiable. Because there's still a difference between objective and subjective norms.

I can't help thinking that we still have not defined either norms or standards very clearly, other than to say that they are not non-norms and they are each other. Are we saying essentially that they are rules or laws of any sort, and are broken into objective and subjective rule systems?

This given, I think where I would go with the social structures issue is to observe that subjective norms are inherently incapable of non-relative values. In fact, as you note, the idea of "best" itself becomes a subjective norm. I'd argue that a subjective norm is incapable of having an objective value, and that all preferences within the subjective norm matrix are purely personal and relative. Thus there is no "best" social system except within the relative, personal interpretations that are part of the subjective norm system.

And over to Joe for the cricket scores ...

Shanglan

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

I'm interested in this debate with Lucifer. I shall do my utmost to annoy both sides by taking a more linguistic approach - although I suppose that to some extent that puts me further into Joe's camp. My point of view on this is that while one may acknowledge infinite physical possiblities in the universe, one cannot allow the universe (a physical entity) the right to undo non-physical constructs not created by the universe (like language). I'd suggest that the question of whether there can be a round square, or a six-legged quadruped, or a pair composed of three items, actually has nothing whatsoever to do with the nature of the universe. It has only to do with whether those terms are compatible in the language we are using to describe what we see. When we say "there is no such thing as a round square," we are talking not so much about the range of possiblities in the universe as we are about the range of possiblities within the term "circle" as our language describes it. We are saying, essentially, that part of our definition of "circle" is "not square," and that if it had square properties, we'd have to call it something else. The universe, in this case, remains infinite and capable of infinite variety; the only thing limited is our own definition of "circle," which only applies to some elements of this infinite set.

ok, i'll concede linguistics. A particular universe's description set will fit for the universe it's set in, but not all linguistic sets can carry over from universe to universe in the (i'm going to start TLAing) EIP multiverse.

round squares and the like are always interesting when looked at dimensionally. A cylinder is a square from one 2d viewpoint and round in another and random in many others.

Moving back, in an EIP multiverse there needs to be some sections where impossibilities are possible. Escher worlds and magic kingdoms and the like. There will also be universes where science doesn't work and cannot be applied. Imagine a universe where like charges attract. Such an occurance would make biology and chemistry impossible by the standards of possibility we maintain. However they would still be possible in our universe. Does the one universes impossibility make our reality (as scientists view it) impossible and thus negating the multiverse? Hardly.

An example straight out of our world. Traditional Christian mythos considers evolution to be a lie. God created man in seven days and made him separate from the beasts in his image. On the other hand, scientific atheism maintains that evolution was real and that God is nonexistant. The two worldviews contradict, but both when pressed can give some series of reasons for how their worldview is possible. Each worldview considers the other an impossibility, but that doesn't create an impossibility in the individual worldviews.

It's a crude example I realize, but in a multiverse where EIP, things can happen that are "impossible" by our reckoning, but in truth are just possible in another universe.

H.P. Lovecraft was a great fan of impossible shapes and the role of multidimension. His humans found themselves unable to describe what they saw because of an inability to believe it possible. This belief still didn't save those humans from what awaited in the land of those shapes. He is a great read for a consideration of the nature of possibility.



So, in essence, Joe in response to Shanigan, I concede the impossibility within universe that which is impossible in that universe and still contend that the EIP multiverse is in total unaffected by such universal impossibilities.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I'll have to get back to this tonite.

Shorthand things I can mention off the bat, before then:

1) I think I've got the standards and norms problem licked;
2) I think the utterance "a universe where the everything is possible including impossible things" is a strict rational contradiction of terms and, while its existence can be a sort of question, it lacks referrent and is entirely meaningless.
3) I don't think multiple universes are possible, by definition.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

I'll have to get back to this tonite.

Shorthand things I can mention off the bat, before then:

1) I think I've got the standards and norms problem licked;
2) I think the utterance "a universe where the everything is possible including impossible things" is a strict rational contradiction of terms and, while its existence can be a sort of question, it lacks referrent and is entirely meaningless.
3) I don't think multiple universes are possible, by definition.

1) Bully for you.

2) a) It's not a rational contradiction of terms because in a world where everything is possible that which we consider impossible is in the realm of possible or to put it another way there is no such thing as impossible anywhere only guidlines of where and where not it's possibility lies.

b) It's existence is a philosophic question or game in which the ideas of "everything" and "possibility" are considered. I'm not sure what you mean by lack of referent. It's certainly unprovable but as the Stoics say "Everything is unprovable". In essence it is an extension of that philosophic perspective. Chances are though you disagree with me. S'cool, in truth I've been having fun thinking about it, your fixation on ego battles aside.

3) Okay. You have a right to that opinion. Personally, I'm siding with Hawkins.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Lucifer_Carroll
1) Bully for you.

2) a) It's not a rational contradiction of terms because in a world where everything is possible that which we consider impossible is in the realm of possible or to put it another way there is no such thing as impossible anywhere only guidlines of where and where not it's possibility lies.

b) It's existence is a philosophic question or game in which the ideas of "everything" and "possibility" are considered. I'm not sure what you mean by lack of referent. It's certainly unprovable but as the Stoics say "Everything is unprovable". In essence it is an extension of that philosophic perspective. Chances are though you disagree with me. S'cool, in truth I've been having fun thinking about it, your fixation on ego battles aside.

3) Okay. You have a right to that opinion. Personally, I'm siding with Hawkins.

1) ...it was meant for Shanglan.
2) It would still be a rational contradiction of ideas--independant of terms. If its a universe where contradiction is possible, then that's not a universe we can actually say, prove, or discuss anything about in a meaningful way. If it can't reference our language for it, it can't be discussed. (and the Stoics, near as I ever knew, never said anything like that... they were Aristotelian philosophers... material world and science and all).
3) Me, too. What Hawkins talks about in things like The Universe in a Nutshell is a cobweb of reality-divergeances and overlappings that have dimension--he even says that by convention its "multiple universe theory", but essentially all those things are part of the same universe--as the universe is an encompassment.

 

[poohlive]

I was going over this, and I think step logic might help. At least, it made sense to me. Perhaps I am missing something though, I don't doubt that I am not. I know not everything is possible.

But, let's say we had two gods. God A and God B. Now, God A is all powerful, God B is not. By definition a god must be all powerful. So, God A fits inside this definition, God B does not. God A is better than God B.
God A is all good, God B is not. God A is all knowing, God B is not. God A is better than God B. Now, God A exists, God B does not.
Therefor, God A is better than God B. So, God A must exist.

God A, is in fact, the best God.

But, there does lie a problem with this. God exists, and we aquit that to a dimension of God, but if God DOES exist, than that means God can't NOT exist. There is a quality that god does not posess, the quality of non-existance. There is a limit to God, and by definition of an all powerful being, God can not have a limitation, or he is not considered a God.

So, God A exists and non-exists. God B only exists. God A is greater than God B.

This is a paradox. Or, we can put it more bluntly. God A can create a paradox in his universe, God B can not. God A is better than God B.

If I was mislead in my logic somewhere, then please point it out to me. I guess it doesn't prove round squares in the universe, but I thought we were saying round squares do not exist because paradoxes can not exist. So, if we can prove paradoxes exist, we can prove that in some way round-squares exist. Although, I can't make the leap from one to the other. I suppose I'll leave someone else to think up that part.