Jump to content

Existence is...the Absolute Singularity.


Recommended Posts

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.

Edited by WendyDarling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by WendyDarling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, WendyDarling said:

 

My logic is simple, based on observations completely void of logical fallacies....

Observations are just that -- they are not logic.  Logic lies in statements about what has been observed.  One can easily stumble in interpreting an observation and make a fallacious statement about it.   And draw false conclusions.  We humans have a glorious history of doing that.... 

I observed the sun come up in the east this morning.  The sun appeared to be moving across the sky,  so I conclude the sun was moving while the Earth was standing still,  and that the sun orbits the Earth.   

So "my logic is simple" didn't get me too far towards the truth,  did it? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, WendyDarling said:

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.

It seems you and I don't use the same definition of intelligence... 

Chance, chaos, they don't exist? I really am unsure why or how you get these ideas. I don't think these ideas hold up to scrutiniy, but I also realise that this is the extent to which you answer, so it might not be a very fruitful discussion. Things like 'be absurd' are... well your opinion. You like to state the way things are, but don't provide evidence or even follow sound logic that makes sure there are no other possibilities. It might be a good idea to focus on explaining your concepts in more steps, explain why things are like this and not in other ways. Thus far you did not seem to answer my question, or those of other people. I asked "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'. "

One can only find several extra statements from which to understand that your definition of intelligence is different from that of other peoples. It might be good to give a proper definition of the words you use. Are they different from what some dictionaries propose, if so,  you should note this down so we can understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, WendyDarling said:

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

Uh oh. How could you possibly know that? And what about the hard evidence we have that, at one point in its evolution, the universe was far too hot and dense to support anything we might call life, let alone intelligent life?

3 hours ago, WendyDarling said:

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

Since you refuse to comment on posts that show otherwise, or clarify your definitions when asked repeatedly, it seems you've decided to stand on your soapbox and declare your words to be Truth.

2 hours ago, WendyDarling said:

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

There you go again, insisting that a property of a thing is a thing itself. Nobody can borrow a cup of your intelligence, because it's not a physical thing that can be formed into an order or pattern. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

Nobody can borrow a cup of your intelligence, because it's not a physical thing that can be formed into an order or pattern. 

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. 

4 hours ago, WendyDarling said:

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

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

See? I can do it, too! This is fun. :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to be confusing “logic” with that which “feels like common sense” to you.

The universe is under no obligation to make sense to our feeble human minds. 

I’d much rather say we don’t yet know than to pretend we know whilst clinging to comfortable fictions and fairy tales. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, WendyDarling said:

Makes clear and perfect sense to me.

 

Congratulations and so what? You act like 'making sense to you' = empirical evidence. For some people it makes perfect sense that the government put micro-chips in the COVID vaccine. Their opinion is exactly as convincing as your opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, WendyDarling said:

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

Nor does it needed to be presented as hyperbole.

7 hours ago, WendyDarling said:

Makes clear and perfect sense to me.

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.

On 9/1/2021 at 9:30 PM, Dagl1 said:

It seems you and I don't use the same definition of intelligence... 

Chance, chaos, they don't exist? I really am unsure why or how you get these ideas. I don't think these ideas hold up to scrutiniy, but I also realise that this is the extent to which you answer, so it might not be a very fruitful discussion. Things like 'be absurd' are... well your opinion. You like to state the way things are, but don't provide evidence or even follow sound logic that makes sure there are no other possibilities. It might be a good idea to focus on explaining your concepts in more steps, explain why things are like this and not in other ways. Thus far you did not seem to answer my question, or those of other people. I asked "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'. "

One can only find several extra statements from which to understand that your definition of intelligence is different from that of other peoples. It might be good to give a proper definition of the words you use. Are they different from what some dictionaries propose, if so,  you should note this down so we can understand.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, WendyDarling said:

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? 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Edited by WendyDarling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, WendyDarling said:

People are asking too many questions

You mean, highlighting the flaws in your thinking and approach? Yeah, I can see why you'd prefer that not to happen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, WendyDarling said:

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.

Please show your calculations for the odds on your being understood. This may give you some insight on why you can't explain your ideas to others.

The approach you're using is a little dishonest, but probably not intentional. You find you can't tear the whole cloth, so you want to break the individual threads and then claim you've done it. You want people to respond to supposedly deep thoughts with black and white answers. And you still won't be answering Dag1's questions, you still won't be making your idea any clearer, and you run the risk of ignoring some valid points in your quest to refute them with this technique.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WendyDarling said:

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? 

 

42 minutes ago, WendyDarling said:

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

Apart from the lack of commonsense demanding an answer to the above question (what is more logical) that can only be offered as yes or no, there is the philosophical difficulty of my answering 'yes'.

Consider

The true statement 'there are no pigs flying past my window at the moment'

The false statement 'there is a cat in my garden at the moment'

Which is more logical ?

Which makes more sense ?

Does being true or false make any difference to these ?

And finally this statement which makes perfect sense, but contains no logic whatsoever, whether it is true or false

'She opened and then shut the green door.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WendyDarling said:

Name everything that creates itself out of nothing.

 

I can answer this one; The Universe. It makes clear and perfect sense to me! 

Just as you can claim one thing without evidence, I can claim the opposite without evidence. Perhaps it would be better if we both simply acknowledged that neither of us knows what really happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/1/2021 at 12:52 PM, iNow said:

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. 

Since our OP ignored it the first time

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/10/2021 at 2:36 AM, WendyDarling said:

What is more logical: A or B

A) Something from nothing

B) Something from something

 

On 9/10/2021 at 2:36 AM, WendyDarling said:

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.

A quick example from physics to show how "A or B" may not be applicable: where do you place virtual particles that appear in vacuum fluctuation? Do they go into A or B per your ideas?

  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.