Logic question: Which is more logical...

A) something coming from nothing

B) something coming from something

A or B? and why?

5 hours ago, studiot said:

Nor does it needed to be presented as hyperbole.

Makes perfect sense to me that you have not read Dag1's post so I have added another + 1 to draw your attention to it.

 

Dag asked too many questions which I could answer and the odds that any of my answers would be understood is nil so I will answer one question and wait for Dag’s reply before I continue. 

“Why does intelligence have to have always existed?”

If you believe that any observable, perceivable phenomena can materialize fully formed from non-existence for no purpose what so ever, then intelligence wouldn’t be an eternal requirement, would it?

Give examples of stuff materializing from non-existence.

If you believe that everything can be made understandable and has some kind of purpose for its existence, then intelligence formed everything.

We exist in a world of understanding, did the intelligence which forms our understanding pop out of non-existence or is it more reasonable that it has always existed, even before we existed, and we inherited some of that intelligence?

What lack of intelligence resides in a formed atom?

What lack of intelligence resides in trillions upon trillions of atoms forming a one-of-a-kind rock?

Do one-of-a-kind rocks pop out of non-existence on a regular basis?

Name everything that creates itself out of nothing.

Does existence mean every perceivable, observable phenomena or stuff everywhere(all dimensions, all galaxies, all universes, all planes of existence)?

Is non-existence antithetical to existence?

Can they, existence and non-existence,both be present and share space?

18 minutes ago, studiot said:

How can one statement be more or less logical than another if there is no scale ?

Yes or no? Do you need a scale to give a yes or no answer?

People are asking too many questions, so I am trying to start with logic 101.

8 hours ago, naitche said:

One.

Recognition.

A single unit of value. Minimum requirement for measure of a thing/existence/being.

Subject of recognition. ie does any value exist with out registration/recognition. 

No.

Recognition requires intelligence to create what is recognized.

6 minutes ago, studiot said:

I know I usually say that folks are too quick to demand binary choices, but I didn't know there was a scale of logicality

Your answer?

Is anyone going to answer my question about logic? 

Logic question: What is more logical...

A) Something from nothing?

B) Something from something?

A or B? 

On 9/1/2021 at 7:19 PM, iNow said:

That’s one reason, anyway.

I do, however, like borrowing intelligence from other members here because it’s not quite so scarce or as hidden. 

Lobsters have always driven motorcycles, fast, free, clawed, but only on paved roads. 

See? I can do it, too! This is fun.  

What is more logical: A or B

A) Something from nothing

B) Something from something

I am having trouble making myself understood and when I offered the definition for absolute singularity in which I then defined requested words, I don’t understand the following accusations that a definition was never given. 

To me, logic doesn’t need 100 or more words per assertion.

Assertion:Creation cannot self-create.

Makes clear and perfect sense to me.

It has two meanings:

A) There is no logic found anywhere, no actual real world example that any observable/perceivable thing can create itself out of nothing so based on that common understanding of reality, it is true that Creation could not have created itself which bring me to...

B) Then Creation has always existed, as an absolute, eternal process, in order to create.

7 minutes ago, Dagl1 said:

Why does intelligence have to have always existed, what evidence is there for this. What evidence can you provide that goes agains the claim 'intelligence has not always existed' or 'there was no intelligence on Earth before life'. 

You keep repeating that your logic is simple, but for those reading this thread it is not, and it seems quite flawed. People in this thread have asked you to clarify things, but you seem to not entirely engage with their arguments.

It might be a good idea to go back into the thread and from page 1 check which definitions have not been given, or which comments you have not fully engaged with yet. This will help both the discussion and the will of other people to participate! Good luck

Existence in and of itself, every variation is intelligence formed into an order, a pattern. 

Patterns and order, complex systems interacting with other complex systems is intelligence actualized.

Be absurd to say out of non-existence popped existence in all its splendor.

Be equally absurd to say all is random, chaos, chance...none of which exist.

All is imperfect order. Order requires intelligence.

If all understanding ceased to exist, chaos would exist.

1 hour ago, iNow said:

I will do no such thing. There is a correct answer here. It's the one I have shared (even if perhaps you've failed to adequately comprehend it). 

Let's assume this is true. I'm fairly comfortable accepting it's not, but let's assume for the sake of argument that you're 100% correct. 

The next question is obvious: Then where did that intelligence come from? 

It's turtles all the way down. You haven't answered the question. You've merely displaced it. 

Intelligence has always existed, eternal, imagining, creating, but limited and imperfect.

My logic is simple, based on observations completely void of logical fallacies, paradoxes, and impossible theories never to be resolved.

I am not a member of any religion, but I can accept how I live on this smaller Earth scale then turn and apply it to the largest scale possible, Existence.

1 minute ago, iNow said:

First, that's not what he stated. Second, even if it WAS, you really need to educate yourself on the basics here if you're going to use them to defend your stance. The factual untruths are with your words, not his. 

Summarized: Reflexes DO happen without the need for a functioning brain. The brain is not needed to create the action, no matter how forcefully or repeatedly you suggest otherwise.  

Let’s agree to disagree. People stand brainless, thoughtless, without any consciousness at all. You win. Makes perfect sense. Science is wrong however you argue on behalf of science, your prerogative. Science has never been wrong before, right? Time waster for me since it lacks the basic logic that equals existence.

Causation.

Without the idea of an eyelid, an eye, a puff of smoke, without those ideas, non-existence would be the actual rather than its antithesis existence.

Everything is an idea, came from an idea, formed by intelligence, not necessarily any religious intelligence, simply intelligence...an intelligent energy which is one of a kind, eternal, imperfect, limited, etc.

My philosophy is based off of observed reality, not all those never to be proven scientific theories which are pure numeric speculations not based on a limited nature(natural laws), not based on causation(but rather “magic”), not accounting for imperfections in any provable way(chaos is fantasy). 

What is imperfect order? Our 4-D dimension. Imperfect but all is ordered. Not incomprehensible.

30 minutes ago, iNow said:

Must you resort to arguing against strawmen? Zapatos obviously suggested nothing of the sort. It's a shame you feel the need to move the goalposts so completely in order to defend your stance. 

He stated something that is factually not true, reflexes do not happen without a functioning brain. I pointed out the fact that functioning brains are needed for any action to occur. In my mind, all your examples refer to a dead frog having electrodes attached to it to make it move without a functioning brain, without a thought behind that functioning brain. You are going to have to give me better examples than that. Perhaps actions, standing, breathing, etc.,are the something coming from nothing completely detached from all reason, all causation. That’s your goalpost just so you understand.

Ideas aren’t needed for intelligence and intelligence isn't needed for a complex system, nor is intelligence needed for interacting complex systems...unthinkable. lol

On 8/31/2021 at 9:55 AM, zapatos said:

Of course I can. Happens every day. Basic neurobiology.

So neurobiology occurs without a brain? Without a functioning brain? 

23 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Standing still is a great example. The muscles in your feet react to imbalances perceived in the brain with conscious effort but no conscious thought. You act without thinking to maintain a balanced stance.

You don't think about blinking before reacting to a puff of air in your eyes, or ducking your head more if you feel the top of the doorway against your hair.

Sure, stand without a functioning brain, see how long that lasts.

On 8/31/2021 at 9:33 AM, iNow said:

Logic dictates that thinking alone is unequal to evidence (of anything more than a thinking person). Equally, "logic" is not evidence that bananas are yellow or ice cream is cold. 

Evidence in the form of logic. That's freaking hysterical. 

Name one thing that is self-creating, ie created itself.

18 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Let's not, since I feel like you want to move the goalposts now.

Defining what you mean shouldn't be hard, and your simple statements use definitions I want to be clear on. Were my questions about snowflakes confusing? I'm trying to figure out why you want to define existence the way you do, yet I'm getting a bunch of pushback.

I have seen no logic yet. Where was this posted? Do you mean something other than philosophical logic? Mathematical logic isn't really applicable here. Are you using the popular, non-scientific definition of logic that means "this makes sense to me"?

I asked questions before and they were ignored. I showed how your reasoning was fallacious and my comment was ignored. This is not so much a personal "stumbling block" as it is a locked door you're holding the key to.

Ok basic logic. Creation(capital C) cannot create itself. Agreed?

18 hours ago, zapatos said:

No. They remain speculations that we can safely ignore.

You only get to claim "theory" once you provide compelling evidence that your assertions and associated model are correct.

I am providing evidence in the form of simple logic. For instance, can you act, before you think? And thinking is not acting.

My opening post works through the basic, beginning logic. If you do not understand that. One question only please in regards to your first stumbling block.

Equal=identical

no other=only one

On 8/28/2021 at 9:40 AM, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

“prove me wrong” doesn’t cut it.

The one making the claim owns the burden of proof

 

I made assertions(a theory if this word is desired).  As in all science, if you cannot prove my assertions false by whatever creative logic or experiments you can concoct, my assertions/theory remain true until proven false, right?

59 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I'm still waiting for answers about definitions for "equal" and "like no other". And shall I assume you agree with me about your fallacious reasoning and assumptions wrt your eternal singularity?

Rather than getting hung up on a definition of mine that you clearly do not wish to accept as it is simple stated, let's move on to the prima facie- idea/s.

All arose from an idea/s.  All=Existence

If you do not understand my logic, my only request is that upon your first stumbling block, ask one question before we get to the rest of the blocks.

One specific question, please.

Prima Facie- an Idea/s

All arose from an idea/s.

Idea/s=intelligence=intelligent Creation

Prove me wrong.

"Just because" won't cut it.

Studiot wrote "If there is only one sort of singularity or even just one 'singularity' why does it need to be qualified by 'absolute' ?"

The Absolute signals both eternal and immutable.

Quote

So you are changing your definition ?

Hmmm, physical was an oopsie.  Yes, simply perceivable and observable stuff(not signifying physical per se).  I am trying to define the difference between what is observed/perceived outside the mind from an idea/imagining solely existing in the mind. 

Better?

3 hours ago, studiot said:

You were also asked for your definition of absolute.

This is so we can distinguish an 'absolute singularity' from any other sort of singularity.

Or are you just adding fancy but meaningless words for effect, rather like advertisers do ?

 

I asked this because I was concerned that you had presented a circular argument or contradicted yourself.

I see you have not done this because as I understand your meaning of 'exist' it can only be applied to material objects.

However this argument is just as fallacious as I have already pointed out that the English language makes provision for material things as well as for immaterial things.

And your argument seems to rest on the premise that no immaterial thing exists.

So would you deny the existance of colour ?

Is a shadow a material or immaterial thing ?

If there is another perceivable singularity, point it out.

"And your argument seems to rest on the premise that no immaterial thing exists."

Didn't I specify things using the words "perceivable" and "observable?"

Is color perceivable?  Is a shadow observable?

My meaning of exist covers more than just what we observe or perceive in this 4 dimensional space.  It is everything that is not an idea or imagining.

Studiot,

My response to your question to define "unsustantiated idea" is above as...

"No physical form.  No actuality."

In other words, some ideas become perceivable phenomena.  The ideas that do not become actual, observable, are unsubstantiated ideas which remain imaginings.

Phi For All,

My definition of an absolute singularity was stated above..."An absolute singularity is one of a kind and has no equal.  It is a unique phenomenon like no other.

Yes, singularity refers to a single event.  In the case of the absolute, this single event called existence is eternal.  The only eternal event observable.

Why am I claiming eternal?

The concept of anything being created from the lack of anything makes no sense.  Hence, existence must have always been working creating as a constant.  A constant without a beginning or an end.  Existence just is...

And there aren't any other existences, that concept is an impossibility based on this one existence encompassing all.

Questions?  I'm still working on word precision.  My ideas about existence have only been rumbling around in my head for a little over a week.

I am totally confused by the layout of this place, the smooshing together replies, and where my responses end up in terns of where I was trying to direct them.  Plus with the five post limit, tomorrow's continuation.  Please don't let your frustration ruin this discussion.  Give me a chance to select the appropriate words for my meaning.  How do I even edit something here?  I've not seen an edit function. 

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

It's still a good idea to make sure we're all using the same definitions.

It seems more like a non-description to me. A hand-waiving side-step that leaves me completely uninformed about it, other than it seems there's only one of them.

I hope you can appreciate what we have to go through wrt posters and advertising. You're free to use scientific references to support your assertions, even place links, but please don't quote other forums when citing evidence. Use more trusted sources that support mainstream science, not YouTube videos and opinion sites.

There's no need for us to read some other philosophy forum's posts when we have you here to discuss the topic with us. We want to hear your thoughts, as a member here.

 

 

Are you referring to a technological singularity, or a mathematical singularity, or just any one-off phenomena that seems unique? Why does it describe all of existence perfectly for you?

 

Yes, there is only one existence and everything that is actual exists as a part of existence. 

Non-existence, is only a concept and idea, which defies the actual...existence and the actual somethings(everything real/actual/observable) which are parts of existence. 

Non-existence means no existence basically.   

We mistakenly label unsubstantiated ideas as actual things that exist such as my non-existent twin, the non-existent Easter Bunny, the non-existent Tooth fairy, etc.  If something never existed, it is only an abstraction based on our ideas and will never become existent.  On the other hand, actual things, any type of existing something, will never become non-existent, instead it will simply change forms.

Is any of this making sense?

Quote

I have no idea what you mean by an unsubstantiated idea ?

No physical form.  No actuality.

Did I not place my thread in a philosophy section?   I'm new.  Uncertain about this user interface and all.

11 minutes ago, studiot said:

My great grandchildren are non existent.

?

They are an unsubstantiated idea, just as the concept of non-existence is an unsubstantiated idea.  If non-existence were realized, we wouldn't be having this exchange.

Quote

An absolute singularity is one of a kind and has no equal.  It is a unique phenomenon like no other...by Gordon Slack

That describes the umbrella known as existence perfectly.

So, a poster, such as I, cannot post references or links to other privately owned websites including all sources of available online media(YouTube, online news outlets, online book references, etc) any online references/sites?  I'm not trying to sell anything, only encourage discussion.  Parts of discussions happen in other places as well.

Existence is...the Absolute Singularity.

I plan on writing about my entire thought process to arrive at my assertion above.  What follows is the start of my journey.

This is the story of why I decided to examine the nature of reality and our human understanding of it. The world around me seems too chaotic and crazy right now, overwhelmed with fear and anger that exacerbates nihilism. Nihilism helps no one. So, due to not sleeping and having an abundance of mental energy, I began processing all the ins and outs, the quandaries, surrounding existence. These quandaries always end in a paradox, logical fallacies, or trippy infinite loops. I thought to myself, is understanding the immediate world around me and its order that messy?

No, I understand the order I find in my basic daily observations with most things being constant rather than inconsistent. With simple logic and reasoning, I can expect the sun to rise, a dog to bark, a chair to hold the seated, so where does understanding reality get so messy? Science. I despise reading and have never invested my understanding in the religion of science, so it was not a stumbling block for me to overcome the current beliefs it espouses.


Currently, I frequent two philosophy websites, commercial sites removed by moderator to expand my horizons regarding thought through the use of reasoning and the application of alternative perspectives.

The poster, Satyr, over at commercial site removed by moderator hammered home the need for me to use my basic observations of reality, the actual, before my head goes up in the clouds of purely abstract ideas that have no concrete foundation, no verifiability. So I did just that and formulated a new understanding of reality, existence.

But where's the foundation underneath my comprehension? From daily observations, I understand the simple consistency or constant that existence provides. I essentially know what to expect moment to moment by and large. I wondered could the simplicity of my expectations apply to the overarching umbrella that is known as existence?

Yes. It can.

Instead of spinning my wheels on paradoxes, logical fallacies, and the rest of the confusing nonsense, I decided to take a bold approach. Existence is...everything actual. No matter what galaxy or dimension or universe. No matter the form or size or shape of any actual thing, everything falls under the umbrella of existence as all that exists. That means there is only one, overarching existence.

Now I asked myself, I reasoned, if everything exists, how can anything not exist?

It can't. Non-existence denies the actual...existence. What?

Non-existence is purely an idea, a concept. But non-existence is understandable for we use it to describe death.

Many ideas and concepts are understandable, but that doesn't mean they make up actual existence in the traditionally understood way. Unicorns are understandable, but do not actually exist. Unicorns are another idea just as non-existence is an idea. There is no non-existence of a unicorn because there was never any existence of an actual unicorn. There are abstractions of unicorns, stuffies, cartoons representations, etc., but nothing actually living as the "animal" is understood.

But death is non-existence. What we are describing as death is change, not non-existence, not the becoming of nothing. I'll get into this more later.

Can something become nothing?

If something can become nothing, how would existence remain? It wouldn't, it'd disappear completely. So nothing and non-existence only exist as place holders in our daily lives but in the actuality of existence only occur as ideas in opposition to existence.

To Be Continued...