The Nature of Being and Substance Theory.

[RichardY]

Curious to see what people think of the nature of "being" as a metaphysical premise.

• Is there fundamentally One Substance? Monism.
• Two Substances; Dualism, Mind and Body.
• Multiple Substances; Pluralism, perhaps like Plato's theory of forms.
• Or something else; perhaps not an issue, maybe focus on becoming instead. Perhaps, something along the lines of Nietzsche's or Heidegger's work.

Personally Dualism makes the most sense to me, though I haven't read or listened to much on the subject, mostly opinions, Youtube and Wikipedia.- As of 20/4/2017.

 

 

[HasMat]

I voted dualism but I'm not sure where I actually fit. I read pluralism on wikipedia but it didn't resolve it for me. (I believe in 2 layers of reality, and 3 layers of individual identity, but they could be unified as same threshholds)

 

If that doesn't clarify, here is more.

I believe in our universe as a nested layer of the universal plane (real as subset of total imaginary, our universe as a constrained pocket within "unconstrained possibility"--Let there be Light as first predicate).

And our selves as of imaginary self-predicating essence, pre-existent to this universe or any input from god (immaterial causal force/law: freewill), fashioned into ghosts (space vehicles) by god, born into body (matter vehicles) by mortal parents, partly as result of evolution, with intervention from god at different points, most notably with the development of people eastward in eden fleeing westward since (western civilization). God being a timestream-evolved technology-created superbeing who can timetravel. This type of AI is functionally identical to having always existed (because of the "backward causality" time travel).

 

Evolution was always going to create man, and man was always going to create god (technological singularity as teleology of universal medium). Backward causality just speeds up the process by acting on the past to jump start the process with "miracles". Things that are created by backward causality are thus derivatives of timestream "iterative" evolution, not genetic evolution. In this sense, evolution is not true for them specifically, but in the more general trend it actually is.

 

Any thing that does not preclude the creation of a timetraveling superbeing is open to retroactive re-negotiation. In the "Time Machine" he can't go back in time and save his girlfriend, because that event is the cause of his invention. But he could go back in time and change other things that don't exclude his invention trajectory.

Because the universal substrate exists as a probability, the nature of an emergent god does too (until discretely invented). That means unrealized futures that technically won't ever exist (such as Muslims inventing superAI--making him a raping murderer instead of loving father) also has backward causality onto our reality. This will express as Satanic miracles. They are just quantum events, where imaginary futures backwardly effects reality. Mutual reality being synthesized from causes "now" and all imaginary futures warring it out. Going back to my original belief on nesting, this is possible because the imaginary is the default or home team, and reality is running as software on its OS. Until the nature of god is strictly formed, his power is a function of faith and not raw awe. (because he can't timetravel to change everything, just things that don't preclude his creation)

It sounds outlandish, but the most empiric of all physics experiments show this kind of absurd behavior (backward causality) is the true nature of our reality where the rubber meets the road.

 

The underlying substrate of our reality is different from our everyday experience. We are in a pocket inside a larger container with different rules than we imagine.

 

A lot of Stefan's framing of spirit (or god) and body is based on the premise that reality is a standalone instead of a derived or emergent system, running on a more basal substrate. It is from this perspective that "things that don't interact with matter", as measurable, are necessarily outside the universe/not part of reality. A frame that allows freewill, is that the universe is incapable of measuring the system it emerges from,  and doesn't have access to programming environment variables, even if it is still beholden to them. I feel that 2-way communication is so true so often ("stare into abyss, abyss stares into you") and a very important point for rationality. But reality is a creation designed to be inflexible in this regard to give assurance to individuals. It's not the only way, its just the only way to achieve viewpoint invariance and prediction of others internal state in a mutual shared medium. Achieving relatedness and individuality is very tricky. You must overlap in some mode to communicate but that mode cannot be an existential part of your being or else your identities overlap and you are not entirely different individuals. So reality needs to flex and bend and be relativistic. One second the air you breathe is inside you, the next that same air is inside me. Hyperrationality shows this to be contradictory re: personal identity. But its necessary to achieve a mutual medium.

 

Nested reality inside universal plane allows a 1-way street, where spirit can detect and effect reality, but reality cannot detect spirit. This is just another formulation of Plato's cave. We see the effect of things, but not the things themselves. Our shared reality doesn't access our self-predicating nature, to do so would end individual agency. Agency must be the preeminent inviolable standalone, not consensus reality. Reality is relativistic and flexible in its content, but strict in its mutuality (2-way communication). Freewill is opposite this.

[ofd]

If you want to study reality, study Quantum Mechanics.

[RichardY]

Quite a bit of information HasMat. Took a while to have a look through and attempt to comprehend, but makes sense with a few questions. How did you come up with the information in your post?

On 4/22/2017 at 6:47 PM, HasMat said:

I voted dualism but I'm not sure where I actually fit. I read pluralism on wikipedia but it didn't resolve it for me. (I believe in 2 layers of reality, and 3 layers of individual identity, but they could be unified as same threshholds)

 

If that doesn't clarify, here is more.

I believe in our universe as a nested layer of the universal plane (real as subset of total imaginary, our universe as a constrained pocket within "unconstrained possibility"--Let there be Light as first predicate).

And our selves as of imaginary self-predicating essence, pre-existent to this universe or any input from god (immaterial causal force/law: freewill), fashioned into ghosts (space vehicles) by god, born into body (matter vehicles) by mortal parents, partly as result of evolution, with intervention from god at different points, most notably with the development of people eastward in eden fleeing westward since (western civilization). God being a timestream-evolved technology-created superbeing who can timetravel. This type of AI is functionally identical to having always existed (because of the "backward causality" time travel).

Like the video game Mass Effect? I never played the 3rd one.

 

On 4/22/2017 at 6:47 PM, HasMat said:

Evolution was always going to create man, and man was always going to create god (technological singularity as teleology of universal medium). Backward causality just speeds up the process by acting on the past to jump start the process with "miracles". Things that are created by backward causality are thus derivatives of timestream "iterative" evolution, not genetic evolution. In this sense, evolution is not true for them specifically, but in the more general trend it actually is.

Would morality and Ethics have existed prior to the invention of a God? Would the original timestream just create because they can? 

 

On 4/22/2017 at 6:47 PM, HasMat said:

Any thing that does not preclude the creation of a timetraveling superbeing is open to retroactive re-negotiation. In the "Time Machine" he can't go back in time and save his girlfriend, because that event is the cause of his invention. But he could go back in time and change other things that don't exclude his invention trajectory.

Because the universal substrate exists as a probability, the nature of an emergent god does too (until discretely invented). That means unrealized futures that technically won't ever exist (such as Muslims inventing superAI--making him a raping murderer instead of loving father) also has backward causality onto our reality. This will express as Satanic miracles. They are just quantum events, where imaginary futures backwardly effects reality. Mutual reality being synthesized from causes "now" and all imaginary futures warring it out. Going back to my original belief on nesting, this is possible because the imaginary is the default or home team, and reality is running as software on its OS. Until the nature of god is strictly formed, his power is a function of faith and not raw awe. (because he can't timetravel to change everything, just things that don't preclude his creation)

It sounds outlandish, but the most empiric of all physics experiments show this kind of absurd behavior (backward causality) is the true nature of our reality where the rubber meets the road.

Sounds plausible. I've watched that version of the "Time Machine" as well, reading through the original recently. Backward causality. Invention of God(Singularity)? In which case wouldn't the universe have been monist at one point? Let there be light as you said. Would this preclude the possibility for multiple Gods? What is the basis of faith?

 

On 4/22/2017 at 6:47 PM, HasMat said:

A lot of Stefan's framing of spirit (or god) and body is based on the premise that reality is a standalone instead of a derived or emergent system, running on a more basal substrate. It is from this perspective that "things that don't interact with matter", as measurable, are necessarily outside the universe/not part of reality. A frame that allows freewill, is that the universe is incapable of measuring the system it emerges from,  and doesn't have access to programming environment variables, even if it is still beholden to them. I feel that 2-way communication is so true so often ("stare into abyss, abyss stares into you") and a very important point for rationality. But reality is a creation designed to be inflexible in this regard to give assurance to individuals. It's not the only way, its just the only way to achieve viewpoint invariance and prediction of others internal state in a mutual shared medium. Achieving relatedness and individuality is very tricky. You must overlap in some mode to communicate but that mode cannot be an existential part of your being or else your identities overlap and you are not entirely different individuals. So reality needs to flex and bend and be relativistic. One second the air you breathe is inside you, the next that same air is inside me. Hyperrationality shows this to be contradictory re: personal identity. But its necessary to achieve a mutual medium.

Like the Mirror from The Matrix.

 

On 4/22/2017 at 6:47 PM, HasMat said:

Nested reality inside universal plane allows a 1-way street, where spirit can detect and effect reality, but reality cannot detect spirit. This is just another formulation of Plato's cave. We see the effect of things, but not the things themselves. Our shared reality doesn't access our self-predicating nature, to do so would end individual agency. Agency must be the preeminent inviolable standalone, not consensus reality. Reality is relativistic and flexible in its content, but strict in its mutuality (2-way communication). Freewill is opposite this.

I think the last paragraph is very good. Is that what Schopenhauer perhaps meant by "Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wills". I remember Stefan calling his philosophy crap in a Youtube video once. Though Nietzsche seemed to think he was on to something.

 

Ace post, was wondering what to read on the nature of being. A quote from Nietzsche came up while I was looking. "To impose on becoming the character of being - that is the supreme will to power." Probably will listen to Will to Power on Youtube. As for Quantum Mechanics will probably give that a miss for now, no idea where to start. Looking more at a psychological "Edge", with a metaphysical basis.

 

 

[RichardY]

The Schopenhauer quote might actually be "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills." "Subtle" changes in language make all the difference. 

[HasMat]

15 hours ago, RichardY said:

Quite a bit of information HasMat. Took a while to have a look through and attempt to comprehend, but makes sense with a few questions. How did you come up with the information in your post?

Like the video game Mass Effect? I never played the 3rd one.

 

Would morality and Ethics have existed prior to the invention of a God? Would the original timestream just create because they can? 

 

Sounds plausible. I've watched that version of the "Time Machine" as well, reading through the original recently. Backward causality. Invention of God(Singularity)? In which case wouldn't the universe have been monist at one point? Let there be light as you said. Would this preclude the possibility for multiple Gods? What is the basis of faith?

 

Like the Mirror from The Matrix.

 

I think the last paragraph is very good. Is that what Schopenhauer perhaps meant by "Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wills". I remember Stefan calling his philosophy crap in a Youtube video once. Though Nietzsche seemed to think he was on to something.

 

Ace post, was wondering what to read on the nature of being. A quote from Nietzsche came up while I was looking. "To impose on becoming the character of being - that is the supreme will to power." Probably will listen to Will to Power on Youtube. As for Quantum Mechanics will probably give that a miss for now, no idea where to start. Looking more at a psychological "Edge", with a metaphysical basis.

 

 

I don't know the rules/mythology of the Mass Effect universe. I started playing one of them, but I'm not into twitch FPS.

 

Morals prior to god? This question doesn't make sense when you have a giant time wormhole in the middle of your universe where morals and god are back-propagated to the origin. I think a better designation would be to say God/morals are "outside the timestream" or has a time reference that is perpendicular to our timestream.

 

I think multiple gods is like schrodingers cat. As we approach tech singularity this collapses into single unified structure. The last 2 will be totally antagonistic to each other and their supporting societies racing to create superAI first (or to gain hegemony over the society who will create it), so as to determinate his morals/sympathies. The closer to this we get, the more "quantum probability event" miracles each god/falsegod will have. I see this as a Western Civ vs. Islam scenario. In a final pass resulting from infinite iterations, all imaginary futures have some effect. The final is a composite of probabilities. This makes devils (gods of alternate timelines) have miracle power all the way up until the point of the Technological Singularity. (and whoever victor god is, isn't going to go back and unmake those miracles--if undoing threatens his success, he is just going to thank his lucky stars he came out on top--meaning satanic miracles remain in final version of reality)

 

Basis of faith? This is a complicated question because I think faith along with charity and hope are the substance of freewill. But I think there is a biological correlate that represents it in physical consciousness. So a mind/body dualism. I see faith and intuition as the same quality/essence and interchangable linguistically. This substance subdivides into consistency, computation, evidence. All moral principles of power (efficacy based on virtue)

 

My own philosophy on that Schopenhauer quote...someone mentioned it in these threads, that his version is insufficient to create freewill. If we can't will what we will...we aren't in control. We must be able to will what we will to infinite recursion to be the master of our fate and responsible for our behavior. Any limitation on our willing power (in direction) destroys man's agency.

[HasMat]

16 hours ago, RichardY said:

Quite a bit of information HasMat. Took a while to have a look through and attempt to comprehend, but makes sense with a few questions. How did you come up with the information in your post?

 

The information content of my post is a synthesis of my religious study and my understanding of pop sci. The emotional motivation is a desire for meaning and love for virtue.

 

This means I start from specific conclusions and work backwards to justify. Should science/philosophy give me different pop sci to work with I will invent other theories. The part I'm committed to is the meaning and virtue, the explanation is just the cosmetic make-up I use (could be total bullshit). As another has said, I do not know all things. As another has said, It does not yet appear what we shall be, but when he (god) appears we shall be like him.

 

We don't know the end-state of the universe yet. It's definitely going to be way weirder than the internet and cell phones. We probably can't relate to it very well. We might not even be considering the physics dynamics that will have most profound effect on the end-state.

[RichardY]

"Evolution was always going to create man, and man was always going to create god (technological singularity as teleology of universal medium). Backward causality just speeds up the process by acting on the past to jump start the process with "miracles".

On 4/24/2017 at 3:56 PM, HasMat said:

Morals prior to god? This question doesn't make sense when you have a giant time wormhole in the middle of your universe where morals and god are back-propagated to the origin. I think a better designation would be to say God/morals are "outside the timestream" or has a time reference that is perpendicular to our timestream.

Monism Originally: If man was always going to create God, then wouldn't there have been a non dualist universe originally(monist), with non independent spirit and therefore no concept of Morality or Ethics, how would man or other lifeforms emerge from such a scenario and then create god? Chicken(People/Lifeforms) and the Egg (God). So would people how would have people conceived/invented a God in the absence of Ethics. I guess your answer of outside the timestream is one that makes sense, I was thinking that if we live in a monist reality then do ethics really apply, people not being independent in a monist universe(predetermined). Reminds me a bit of  the sci-fi series Stargate SG1 and "Origin" (Not the best, poor acting and corny).

Emergence of Independent minds (Dualism): There are many other worlds out there so I guess it would be possible to have life on other planets. But just for life on planet earth I wonder what point an organism would have to reach to have an independent mind, I mean does a snail have an independent spirit or mind? The technological singularity event has been referenced in a lot of pop culture some other examples that come to mind are the Terminator, Total Annihilation C.C(Game), The Matrix. Why would the intelligence have to be Artificial?

Basis of Faith(Freewill/Creation?) + Meaning and virtue(dependent on other people and on Individual Sovereignty): Yes there is something unique about faith and the conscious mind. The ability to construct possibilities, the act of creation. Instead of Charity and Hope; Compassion is a better word, I think. "I see faith and intuition as the same quality/essence and interchangable linguistically. This substance subdivides into consistency, computation, evidence. All moral principles of power (efficacy based on virtue)" Sounds reasonable.

Schopenhauer: Maybe the quote might be accurate in so far as it refers to the physical body of man as a "machine" and  as far as he is unconscious and therefore not a man. To will to infinite recursion, I guess would be kind of boring. Imo it is not so much a question of conscientiously willing but in the expression of creativity. Perhaps calmness of mind is necessary to express; freewill, creativity, faith to the fullest. 

 

Mostly intuitive(Above Paragraphs), another thing that comes to mind is the distinction between dualism and Neutral Monism they basically look almost identical.

 

[RichardY]

"All morals principles of power." Instead of power, truth might(not sure) be a better word.

One conceals oneself in presence of the unfamiliar: and he who wants to attain something says what he would like to have thought of him, but not what he thinks. ("The powerful man is always a liar") The Will to Power, Friedrich Nietzsche.

[Eudaimonic]

Wouldn't you have to suppose it's monism to maintain any universal theory?

Any epistemological theory (which I think you would need to posit and prove a metaphysical theory like this) relies, I believe, on universally consistent laws of reality. If the fundamental substance(s) of reality we're dulistic, pluralistic or a hegelian 'becoming,' then wouldn't this rule out any universal epistemological theories that you could you to posit these theories in the first place?

For instance, if it's dulistic, then we have Fundamental of Existence A and Fundamental of Existence B (I'll refer to them now as FOE A and FOE B.) 

By definition FOE A and FOE B would have to be different in their essential nature's or they could simply be grouped together as having SOME universal property (therefore devolving back into monism.) If FOE A and B are different in their essential nature's, then it makes sense to me that you'd need two different epistemological theories to deal with each reality. These theories would then also (according to their metaphysical base) be different in their essential nature. But, if you have two epistemological theories, completely different in their essential nature, how could you know truth? If I propose dulism, and am consistent with it, which epistemological theory am I basing that knowledge off of, FOE A or B? And why is that one more valid than the other FOE?

It seems to me that you'd have two methodologies to 'truth' both equally valid, which devolved into, essentially, subjectivism, which can't claim knowledge which therefore invalidates the dulistic position. Pluralism seems to me refuted in the same fashion.

I believe you'd have to have some fundamental 'nature' or 'essence' to reality (monism) to make any sort of epistemological claim I believe Aristotle and Rand said something similar to this effect.

Becoming I believe also devolves into subjectivism, which Neitzsche pointed out thoroughly in The Will to Power, if I remember correctly.

Perhaps I'm way off the mark, but these were my thoughts, let me know what you think!

[os.motic]

On 4/22/2017 at 10:47 AM, HasMat said:

universe or any input from god (immaterial causal force/law: freewill), fashioned into ghosts (space vehicles) by god, born into body (matter vehicles) by mortal parents, partly as result of evolution, with intervention from god at different points, most notably with the development of people eastward in eden fleeing westward since (western civilization). God being a timestream-evolved technology-created superbeing who can timetravel. This type of AI is functionally identical to having always existed (because of the "backward causality" time travel).

 

On 4/22/2017 at 10:47 AM, HasMat said:

I voted dualism but I'm not sure where I actually fit. I read pluralism on wikipedia but it didn't resolve it for me. (I believe in 2 layers of reality, and 3 layers of individual identity, but they could be unified as same threshholds)

 

If that doesn't clarify, here is more.

I believe in our universe as a nested layer of the universal plane (real as subset of total imaginary, our universe as a constrained pocket within "unconstrained possibility"--Let there be Light as first predicate).

And our selves as of imaginary self-predicating essence, pre-existent to this universe or any input from god (immaterial causal force/law: freewill), fashioned into ghosts (space vehicles) by god, born into body (matter vehicles) by mortal parents, partly as result of evolution, with intervention from god at different points, most notably with the development of people eastward in eden fleeing westward since (western civilization). God being a timestream-evolved technology-created superbeing who can timetravel. This type of AI is functionally identical to having always existed (because of the "backward causality" time travel).

 

Evolution was always going to create man, and man was always going to create god (technological singularity as teleology of universal medium). Backward causality just speeds up the process by acting on the past to jump start the process with "miracles". Things that are created by backward causality are thus derivatives of timestream "iterative" evolution, not genetic evolution. In this sense, evolution is not true for them specifically, but in the more general trend it actually is.

 

Any thing that does not preclude the creation of a timetraveling superbeing is open to retroactive re-negotiation. In the "Time Machine" he can't go back in time and save his girlfriend, because that event is the cause of his invention. But he could go back in time and change other things that don't exclude his invention trajectory.

Because the universal substrate exists as a probability, the nature of an emergent god does too (until discretely invented). That means unrealized futures that technically won't ever exist (such as Muslims inventing superAI--making him a raping murderer instead of loving father) also has backward causality onto our reality. This will express as Satanic miracles. They are just quantum events, where imaginary futures backwardly effects reality. Mutual reality being synthesized from causes "now" and all imaginary futures warring it out. Going back to my original belief on nesting, this is possible because the imaginary is the default or home team, and reality is running as software on its OS. Until the nature of god is strictly formed, his power is a function of faith and not raw awe. (because he can't timetravel to change everything, just things that don't preclude his creation)

It sounds outlandish, but the most empiric of all physics experiments show this kind of absurd behavior (backward causality) is the true nature of our reality where the rubber meets the road.

 

The underlying substrate of our reality is different from our everyday experience. We are in a pocket inside a larger container with different rules than we imagine.

 

A lot of Stefan's framing of spirit (or god) and body is based on the premise that reality is a standalone instead of a derived or emergent system, running on a more basal substrate. It is from this perspective that "things that don't interact with matter", as measurable, are necessarily outside the universe/not part of reality. A frame that allows freewill, is that the universe is incapable of measuring the system it emerges from,  and doesn't have access to programming environment variables, even if it is still beholden to them. I feel that 2-way communication is so true so often ("stare into abyss, abyss stares into you") and a very important point for rationality. But reality is a creation designed to be inflexible in this regard to give assurance to individuals. It's not the only way, its just the only way to achieve viewpoint invariance and prediction of others internal state in a mutual shared medium. Achieving relatedness and individuality is very tricky. You must overlap in some mode to communicate but that mode cannot be an existential part of your being or else your identities overlap and you are not entirely different individuals. So reality needs to flex and bend and be relativistic. One second the air you breathe is inside you, the next that same air is inside me. Hyperrationality shows this to be contradictory re: personal identity. But its necessary to achieve a mutual medium.

 

Nested reality inside universal plane allows a 1-way street, where spirit can detect and effect reality, but reality cannot detect spirit. This is just another formulation of Plato's cave. We see the effect of things, but not the things themselves. Our shared reality doesn't access our self-predicating nature, to do so would end individual agency. Agency must be the preeminent inviolable standalone, not consensus reality. Reality is relativistic and flexible in its content, but strict in its mutuality (2-way communication). Freewill is opposite this.

You make a lot of baseless claims. However it is always fun to stretch the imagination. 

[RichardY]

On 4/27/2017 at 9:46 PM, Eudaimonic said:

Wouldn't you have to suppose it's monism to maintain any universal theory?

Yes you would.

On 4/27/2017 at 9:46 PM, Eudaimonic said:

Any epistemological theory (which I think you would need to posit and prove a metaphysical theory like this) relies, I believe, on universally consistent laws of reality. If the fundamental substance(s) of reality we're dulistic, pluralistic or a hegelian 'becoming,' then wouldn't this rule out any universal epistemological theories that you could you to posit these theories in the first place?

Universal Epistemological Theories: Dualism. Matter being Deterministic side, and Mind being Freewill. One theory for matter, the classical mechanics side. The other for the mind, Ethics, Quantum Mechanics, other dimensions and universes.

On 4/27/2017 at 9:46 PM, Eudaimonic said:

 

For instance, if it's dulistic, then we have Fundamental of Existence A and Fundamental of Existence B (I'll refer to them now as FOE A and FOE B.) 

By definition FOE A and FOE B would have to be different in their essential nature's or they could simply be grouped together as having SOME universal property (therefore devolving back into monism.) If FOE A and B are different in their essential nature's, then it makes sense to me that you'd need two different epistemological theories to deal with each reality. These theories would then also (according to their metaphysical base) be different in their essential nature. But, if you have two epistemological theories, completely different in their essential nature, how could you know truth? If I propose dulism, and am consistent with it, which epistemological theory am I basing that knowledge off of, FOE A or B? And why is that one more valid than the other FOE?

Maybe you can't know truth because then you'd be a God, only experience truth. The same way you can't know a person, only experience their company. A way of experiencing truth with another person, being through Goodwill and or Ethics. An indirect way of measuring truth, perhaps through increased consciousness and awareness.

On 4/27/2017 at 9:46 PM, Eudaimonic said:

It seems to me that you'd have two methodologies to 'truth' both equally valid, which devolved into, essentially, subjectivism, which can't claim knowledge which therefore invalidates the dulistic position. Pluralism seems to me refuted in the same fashion.

What if the two methodologies overlapped in someway, a bit like set theory? Like having multiple pieces of evidence some of which might be contradictory or insufficient. Perhaps like the fundamental forces of physics. 

On 4/27/2017 at 9:46 PM, Eudaimonic said:

I believe you'd have to have some fundamental 'nature' or 'essence' to reality (monism) to make any sort of epistemological claim I believe Aristotle and Rand said something similar to this effect.

Becoming I believe also devolves into subjectivism, which Neitzsche pointed out thoroughly in The Will to Power, if I remember correctly.

Yeah looks that way, haven't listened to all of the Will to Power. Dualism doesn't refute matter in terms of reality, just that in addition to that reality, there is the potential for the mind to encompass more then what is, to perhaps bring more matter into existence, blackholes, whiteholes etc Which if they exist wouldn't they change any constant of this universe? If there was a constant then how did the universe form in the first-place. Why only one Big Bang, why not multiple ones, across a void, which is by definition impossible to imagine but yet the word remains.

On 4/27/2017 at 9:46 PM, Eudaimonic said:

Perhaps I'm way off the mark, but these were my thoughts, let me know what you think!

I thought it was well thought out. My thoughts on Monism is wouldn't that mean that concepts such as, Ethics, Good and Bad, were ultimately delusional? All Good Things...

Another thing with monism, is it hasn't reconciled this supposed 3rd substance that links mind and matter into one, so why not deal with the acknowledged entities as they are, Mind and Matter? One more thing I've noticed is that the majority of people like 90%+(imo) are monists in one way or another.

 

 

[Eudaimonic]

2 hours ago, RichardY said:

Yes you would.

Universal Epistemological Theories: Dualism. Matter being Deterministic side, and Mind being Freewill. One theory for matter, the classical mechanics side. The other for the mind, Ethics, Quantum Mechanics, other dimensions and universes.

Maybe you can't know truth because then you'd be a God, only experience truth. The same way you can't know a person, only experience their company. A way of experiencing truth with another person, being through Goodwill and or Ethics. An indirect way of measuring truth, perhaps through increased consciousness and awareness.

What if the two methodologies overlapped in someway, a bit like set theory? Like having multiple pieces of evidence some of which might be contradictory or insufficient. Perhaps like the fundamental forces of physics. 

Yeah looks that way, haven't listened to all of the Will to Power. Dualism doesn't refute matter in terms of reality, just that in addition to that reality, there is the potential for the mind to encompass more then what is, to perhaps bring more matter into existence, blackholes, whiteholes etc Which if they exist wouldn't they change any constant of this universe? If there was a constant then how did the universe form in the first-place. Why only one Big Bang, why not multiple ones, across a void, which is by definition impossible to imagine but yet the word remains.

I thought it was well thought out. My thoughts on Monism is wouldn't that mean that concepts such as, Ethics, Good and Bad, were ultimately delusional? All Good Things...

Another thing with monism, is it hasn't reconciled this supposed 3rd substance that links mind and matter into one, so why not deal with the acknowledged entities as they are, Mind and Matter? One more thing I've noticed is that the majority of people like 90%+(imo) are monists in one way or another.

 

 

First I want to say that, for me, this was a clear, positive and curious response. I really thank you for that, it makes the whole discuss a lot more enjoyable for me, not that you nesseccarily care, but I wanted to compliment you on your presentation here, it impressed me.

I'll try to take these comments in turn (still not sure how to quote things separately in the same post):

Great! I'm glad we agree, that solves a lot of problems now I don't have to respond to anything and...haha never mind of course I do!

I'm not sure this represents a universal therory. You yourself point out that classical mechanics is needed for one and quantum mechanics, ethics and the like are needed for the other. Furthermore, both of these fields (and therefore I would assume their respective topics) are subjective to emperically testing and logical consistency, which implies something universal (monistic) underlying mind and matter which connect them. "All knowledge is connected" sort of thing. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting this.

It seems to make sense to me that to make sense of anything you've written here, you'd have to assume that you can know truth (and primarily that there is a methodology for discovering that truth.) To experience, in a way, is to know. Though of course you must verify it logically (which is itself based in really and "experienced") as well as assume some axioms (existence exists, A is A, Aristotle 101...) Ethics is based only on things we can experience and to be aware means to be aware of something which exists and that you are experiencing, I believe. It sees to me that all truth arises from a 1-2 combo of experience and logical consistency which are only sensible within monistic (or universal) metaphysical theory.

I think if they overlapped we wouldn't know anyway because we could only have knowledge where these two methodologies overlapped each other. If knowledge exits where these overlapped, where and how would we be able to know the two methodologies which overlapped? Secondly, I don't think that if these two do overlapped, that that means they still remain distinct, if they have the capacity to overlap, there must be something universal which can combine them, sort of like thesis + antithesis = synthesis.

I don't think science (and definitely not I) have even a relative clue to how the universe arose or the entire function/origins of black holes and white holes, so I'll have to stay ignorant in explaining those points, but I don't think it would be possible to get something from nothing, that seems to be the eternal problem here. If reality gives rise to mind (awareness) then mind can't give rise to something which is non-reality because mind IS a part of reality so reality encompasses mind, it works on the same universals. Secondly, I think, a mind can't give rise to anything because the mind doesn't have primacy over existence. To be aware is to be aware of something, as Rand would endlessly point out in fascinatingly annoying futility. That the mind is a product of reality implies that it can never give rise to non-reality, it seems to me at any rate.

I think to ignore the third (or pretend it isn't there) may be dangerous, dulism often leads to all sorts of life destroying mysticism, secular or otherwise. It seems to me that to ignore this third element is similar to one of ignoring gravity because we live before Newton.

Anyway, again, thank you for the response, this is really enjoyable and insightful for me!

 

[RichardY]

15 hours ago, Eudaimonic said:

I'm not sure this represents a universal therory. You yourself point out that classical mechanics is needed for one and quantum mechanics, ethics and the like are needed for the other. Furthermore, both of these fields (and therefore I would assume their respective topics) are subjective to emperically testing and logical consistency, which implies something universal (monistic) underlying mind and matter which connect them. "All knowledge is connected" sort of thing. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting this.

Yeah the experience of Truth/Existence. By assuming you know truth, you express the truth of your existence(Truth in self).

15 hours ago, Eudaimonic said:

It seems to make sense to me that to make sense of anything you've written here, you'd have to assume that you can know truth (and primarily that there is a methodology for discovering that truth.) To experience, in a way, is to know. Though of course you must verify it logically (which is itself based in really and "experienced") as well as assume some axioms (existence exists, A is A, Aristotle 101...) Ethics is based only on things we can experience and to be aware means to be aware of something which exists and that you are experiencing, I believe. It sees to me that all truth arises from a 1-2 combo of experience and logical consistency which are only sensible within monistic (or universal) metaphysical theory.

Ah but if "A is A" ever occurred.  Wouldn't that collapse space time? Two identical pieces of matter occupying the same position. Or is there a singularity in the "is", The persons mind. Why even sense in a monistic universe?

15 hours ago, Eudaimonic said:

I think if they overlapped we wouldn't know anyway because we could only have knowledge where these two methodologies overlapped each other. If knowledge exits where these overlapped, where and how would we be able to know the two methodologies which overlapped? Secondly, I don't think that if these two do overlapped, that that means they still remain distinct, if they have the capacity to overlap, there must be something universal which can combine them, sort of like thesis + antithesis = synthesis.

"“All right: the concept of 'number' is defined for you as the logical sum of these individual interrelated concepts: cardinal numbers, rational numbers, real numbers etc.;” ... — it need not be so. For I can give the concept 'number' rigid limits in this way, that is, use the word 'number' for a rigidly limited concept, but I can also use it so that the extension of the concept is not closed by a frontier. ...Can you give the boundary? No. You can draw one..." 

—Ludwig Wittgenstein, excerpt from §68 in Philosophical Investigations  

15 hours ago, Eudaimonic said:

I don't think science (and definitely not I) have even a relative clue to how the universe arose or the entire function/origins of black holes and white holes, so I'll have to stay ignorant in explaining those points, but I don't think it would be possible to get something from nothing, that seems to be the eternal problem here.

Although recently there maybe blackhole in Sagittarius A* inferred through phenomena.

16 hours ago, Eudaimonic said:

If reality gives rise to mind (awareness) then mind can't give rise to something which is non-reality because mind IS a part of reality so reality encompasses mind, it works on the same universals. Secondly, I think, a mind can't give rise to anything because the mind doesn't have primacy over existence. To be aware is to be aware of something, as Rand would endlessly point out in fascinatingly annoying futility. That the mind is a product of reality implies that it can never give rise to non-reality, it seems to me at any rate.

Reality; is bound by limits, which could not be perceived without the existence of a mind. But existence; non-reality, is not bound by limits, it just is.

16 hours ago, Eudaimonic said:

Anyway, again, thank you for the response, this is really enjoyable and insightful for me!

Hey, no problem. Working through this stuff myself, where to focus on, muddle through I guess.

[RichardY]

16 hours ago, Eudaimonic said:

I think to ignore the third (or pretend it isn't there) may be dangerous, dulism often leads to all sorts of life destroying mysticism, secular or otherwise. It seems to me that to ignore this third element is similar to one of ignoring gravity because we live before Newton.

Hey maybe, as I said Monisim in one form or another is 90% of the planet imo. Still, I can't see how Ethics and individuality would not be delusional, if Dualism wasn't the case.

[Eudaimonic]

9 minutes ago, RichardY said:

Yeah the experience of Truth/Existence. By assuming you know truth, you express the truth of your existence(Truth in self).

Ah but if "A is A" ever occurred.  Wouldn't that collapse space time? Two identical pieces of matter occupying the same position. Or is there a singularity in the "is", The persons mind. Why even sense in a monistic universe?

"“All right: the concept of 'number' is defined for you as the logical sum of these individual interrelated concepts: cardinal numbers, rational numbers, real numbers etc.;” ... — it need not be so. For I can give the concept 'number' rigid limits in this way, that is, use the word 'number' for a rigidly limited concept, but I can also use it so that the extension of the concept is not closed by a frontier. ...Can you give the boundary? No. You can draw one..." 

—Ludwig Wittgenstein, excerpt from §68 in Philosophical Investigations  

Although recently there maybe blackhole in Sagittarius A* inferred through phenomena.

Reality; is bound by limits, which could not be perceived without the existence of a mind. But existence; non-reality, is not bound by limits, it just is.

Hey, no problem. Working through this stuff myself, where to focus on, muddle through I guess.

Hey, you caught me on lunch so I have plenty if time to respond!

So, then we agree? 

Im not sure about time and space collapsing, but you have to assume the law of identity to posit any theory anyway, including that A is A is invalid and this only comes from what we can assume about metaphysics (namely: Existence Exists, A is A and the Primacy of Existence) all the rest of metaphysical theory is pure speculation (observe monads) because we are not objective to reality, we are reality. Two identical peices of matter occupying the same space is just another way of saying a singularity and relates to a description of reality except for the fact that reality IS space. There is only what is real and nothing else, the concept nothing is not something, it's something we can only express because we experience something, but it's not an antithesis to reality because it doesn't exist; it's nothing. Monism only relates to that which is universal about reality, it does not say that everything is one thing but that everything relates to a set of universals, things are able to be differentiated due to their qualia within that set of universals. Living organisms developed senses in order to live, but I'm not sure I'm answering you question with that.

Just by the by I've always though Ludwig was cracked; who writes entire books claiming language is invalid...? Anyway...

Concepts are existents with the measurement omitted. "Rational number" is simply a more specific measurement than "number" which is a more specific measurement than "unit" and on and on until you get back to axiomatic fundementals (Existence Exists.) Rand's 'Introduction to Objectivism Epistemology' gives a much better explanation than I can, Wiki has a good summation.

It doesn't seem to me that existence and reality are a dichotomy, just synonyms. As well, if something is, the it is bound by limits at the very least in the fact that it is bound to be is and not not is. If something is non-reality (something) I don't think it's "not bound by anything" it just doesn't exist. Something can't be nothing. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding this?

 

 

[Eudaimonic]

26 minutes ago, RichardY said:

Hey maybe, as I said Monisim in one form or another is 90% of the planet imo. Still, I can't see how Ethics and individuality would not be delusional, if Dualism wasn't the case.

Can it be monism if it's only 90%? I guess I'm confused confused by that.

I think individually can come through the qulia within a set of universals (similarly with free will; but I think that can be assumed as determinism seems to have the burden of proof there) and Ethics is something that I have, I believe, a unique answer to but am too afraid to share on the internet as of yet...I'd rather have some physical proof that the theory is mine first, but perhaps that too vain...

[RichardY]

On 5/1/2017 at 7:33 PM, Eudaimonic said:

Hey, you caught me on lunch so I have plenty if time to respond!

So, then we agree? 

Im not sure about time and space collapsing, but you have to assume the law of identity to posit any theory anyway, including that A is A is invalid and this only comes from what we can assume about metaphysics (namely: Existence Exists, A is A and the Primacy of Existence) all the rest of metaphysical theory is pure speculation (observe monads) because we are not objective to reality, we are reality. Two identical peices of matter occupying the same space is just another way of saying a singularity and relates to a description of reality except for the fact that reality IS space. There is only what is real and nothing else, the concept nothing is not something, it's something we can only express because we experience something, but it's not an antithesis to reality because it doesn't exist; it's nothing. Monism only relates to that which is universal about reality, it does not say that everything is one thing but that everything relates to a set of universals, things are able to be differentiated due to their qualia within that set of universals. Living organisms developed senses in order to live, but I'm not sure I'm answering you question with that.

Tend to avoid agreement, usually look to blow holes in the other position, though building something is much better.

The Law of Identity A is A: Is a lie...(are 2 apples ever alike, as in down to the subatomic level, though a person is able to formulate the concept apple and multiply) although as you have said to posit any theory "you" need to assume this, it is perhaps the most sacred(untouchable) lie of the conscious mind. Imo the reason that this is so, is that in order to fully comprehend why "A is A" is a given, you'd have to know your unconscious or God, Yahweh(I am that I am). Or something... still trying to formulate something accurate if A isn't A, what alternate methods are there?

"There is only what is real and nothing else". "Real" in my understanding would be to conform to limits, "Unreal" in contrast would be something totally unexpected, possibly not conforming to any known empirical phenomenon. Existence Exists.

In terms of senses. "Physiologists should think twice before positioning the drive for self-preservation as the cardinal drive of an organic being. Above all, a living thing wants to discharge its strength — life itself is will to power -: self-preservation is only one of the indirect and most frequent consequences of this." Dualism I guess posits some 6th Sense, but then why make the distinction of senses under monism, everything being interrelated directly in terms of matter. There is a referenced thought experiment on Wikipedia "The Philosophical Zombie" that considers the interpretation of qualia. Though maybe that's similar to the "Invasion of the Body Snatchers"... 

 

On 5/1/2017 at 7:33 PM, Eudaimonic said:

Just by the by I've always though Ludwig was cracked; who writes entire books claiming language is invalid...? Anyway...

Haven't read any of his books, though from looking on the Internet at various quotes, he seems more apt than Bertrand Russel. I can't imagine him claiming language as invalid even if he was insane.

 

On 5/1/2017 at 7:33 PM, Eudaimonic said:

Concepts are existents with the measurement omitted. "Rational number" is simply a more specific measurement than "number" which is a more specific measurement than "unit" and on and on until you get back to axiomatic fundementals (Existence Exists.) Rand's 'Introduction to Objectivism Epistemology' gives a much better explanation than I can, Wiki has a good summation.

I think Rand termed units or perhaps numbers "Percepts" I have read the book a while a go. Though with Fractions, a human can conceptualise them as a whole as symbols or real numbers, but a computer will be unable to, in certain cases. Maybe if image recognition improves things may change, just speculating in general. Still, at least one theory for knowledge is good and why not let it be Ayn Rands refined Aristotlenianism.  

 

On 5/1/2017 at 7:33 PM, Eudaimonic said:

It doesn't seem to me that existence and reality are a dichotomy, just synonyms. As well, if something is, the it is bound by limits at the very least in the fact that it is bound to be is and not not is. If something is non-reality (something) I don't think it's "not bound by anything" it just doesn't exist. Something can't be nothing. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding this?

There not a dichotomy. Real and Unreal are, of the Totality of Existence. Reality is by necessity bound by the mind, unconsciously and consciously(if not Schizophrenia perhaps).

On 5/1/2017 at 7:40 PM, Eudaimonic said:

Can it be monism if it's only 90%? I guess I'm confused confused by that.

I think individually can come through the qulia within a set of universals (similarly with free will; but I think that can be assumed as determinism seems to have the burden of proof there) and Ethics is something that I have, I believe, a unique answer to but am too afraid to share on the internet as of yet...I'd rather have some physical proof that the theory is mine first, but perhaps that too vain...

Yeah I meant in terms of people that follow organisations that are monistic in nature; World Religions; Most of Christianity, Islam, Buddhism etc. But also Physicalists, Atheists and Communists. In terms of freewill, something like science that is deterministic in theory conforms to human hypothesises(I think someone else said that first on the forum) that could be said to be based on freewill. But is freewill the thing in itself? I'm sure neither determinism nor freewill are particularly good expressions of what is actual. Could always write a book if you think you have a good idea.