Hi all,
I'm trying to develop a reasonable criteria for determining meaningless or insignificant coincidence vs. possible or even probable connection or causation, when that connection or causation may not be verifiable by empirical means. Yes, I'm thinking of religious attribution, but not that subject alone -- I'm hoping to find a more general theory or method that can be applied to other topics. Ideas?
Thanks
A reasonable criteria for determining meaningless
-
mysterio152
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2019 3:45 am
-
mohamedtaqi
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2019 5:38 pm
Re: A reasonable criteria for determining meaningless
Although I do not think my reply will give any direct answer, I think probably analytical philosophy will give you kind of a methodology to look for meaningless. here's what I mean
I am personally both Skeptic and Nihlist : Skeptic, so that I think that it is IMPOSSIBLE to know the ultimate meaning or purpose of everything, and I am a Nihilist in that I think that such meaning does not exist. Here is my analytical argument.
Let us consider a premise : "Everything has meaning" and see what implications implications are, analytically , this is what the statement means :
"for all x, there exists some y, so that y contributes to the meaning of x AND x does not contribute to the meaning of y"
For example : if C is the purpose or meaning of B , and B is the purpose or meaning of A , then it cannot be the case that A contributes to the meaning of B and C.
From our premise (everything has purpose) , it follows that if all things that exist are in a set S : S={a, b, c, d, e .....z} , then it must be that all elements have purpose and meaning, so that z is the meaning of y , y is the meaning and purpose of x , x the meaning of w.... b the meaning of a
But what is the meaning of z ? it cannot be any element in the set S (since z contributes to all their meanings and purposes), so we have to add another element to the set S , so that it accounts for the purpose of z , thus : S={a, b, c, d, e .....z, a1} , and a1 also has to get its meaning from something else which is not in the set , that is b1 ... ad infinitum.
So we conclude that if everything has meaning/purpose, then meanings and purposes (and entities that contribute them) are infinite.
My conclusion :
- Either everything has meaning in this case : Nihilism is false (since everything has meaning and purpose)
- Or everything has meaning, except the ultimate reality itself (z in our example) : Nihilism is true.
I am a Nihilist because I think probably things are not infinite ( I mean levels... the thing that constitutes everything : energy, quantum fields or whatever physicists may call it... has no meaning or purpose). And if God exists, then God himself cannot get his/her meaning from another entity or from himself, so Nihilism still holds if God has no purpose or meaning for his existence.
But as I said, Nihilism maybe false (if everything is infinite and everything has meaning).
Back to skepticism :
Surprisingly enough, skepticism, unlike nihilism, always holds true :
- Either everything has meaning, therefore everything is infinite, therefore meanings and purposes are infinite, therefore it is impossible to know all these infinite meanings and purposes , therefore skepticism is true.
- Or everything has meaning, except ultimate reality (or God, or quantum fields) , therefore it is possible to know the meaning of everything, BUT it is not possible to know the meaning and purpose of the Ultimate reality , therefore knowledge is still impossible here : therefore Skepticism is true.
That's it.
I am personally both Skeptic and Nihlist : Skeptic, so that I think that it is IMPOSSIBLE to know the ultimate meaning or purpose of everything, and I am a Nihilist in that I think that such meaning does not exist. Here is my analytical argument.
Let us consider a premise : "Everything has meaning" and see what implications implications are, analytically , this is what the statement means :
"for all x, there exists some y, so that y contributes to the meaning of x AND x does not contribute to the meaning of y"
For example : if C is the purpose or meaning of B , and B is the purpose or meaning of A , then it cannot be the case that A contributes to the meaning of B and C.
From our premise (everything has purpose) , it follows that if all things that exist are in a set S : S={a, b, c, d, e .....z} , then it must be that all elements have purpose and meaning, so that z is the meaning of y , y is the meaning and purpose of x , x the meaning of w.... b the meaning of a
But what is the meaning of z ? it cannot be any element in the set S (since z contributes to all their meanings and purposes), so we have to add another element to the set S , so that it accounts for the purpose of z , thus : S={a, b, c, d, e .....z, a1} , and a1 also has to get its meaning from something else which is not in the set , that is b1 ... ad infinitum.
So we conclude that if everything has meaning/purpose, then meanings and purposes (and entities that contribute them) are infinite.
My conclusion :
- Either everything has meaning in this case : Nihilism is false (since everything has meaning and purpose)
- Or everything has meaning, except the ultimate reality itself (z in our example) : Nihilism is true.
I am a Nihilist because I think probably things are not infinite ( I mean levels... the thing that constitutes everything : energy, quantum fields or whatever physicists may call it... has no meaning or purpose). And if God exists, then God himself cannot get his/her meaning from another entity or from himself, so Nihilism still holds if God has no purpose or meaning for his existence.
But as I said, Nihilism maybe false (if everything is infinite and everything has meaning).
Back to skepticism :
Surprisingly enough, skepticism, unlike nihilism, always holds true :
- Either everything has meaning, therefore everything is infinite, therefore meanings and purposes are infinite, therefore it is impossible to know all these infinite meanings and purposes , therefore skepticism is true.
- Or everything has meaning, except ultimate reality (or God, or quantum fields) , therefore it is possible to know the meaning of everything, BUT it is not possible to know the meaning and purpose of the Ultimate reality , therefore knowledge is still impossible here : therefore Skepticism is true.
That's it.
Re: A reasonable criteria for determining meaningless
- it doesn't serve a purposemysterio152 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 4:01 am I'm trying to develop a reasonable criteria for determining meaningless or insignificant coincidence vs. possible or even probable connection or causation, when that connection or causation may not be verifiable by empirical means
- it doesn't state a short clear point
- can it actually solve any problems?
Re: A reasonable criteria for determining meaningless
Math and logic section, "Assumption of Inherent Void" thread may help.mysterio152 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 4:01 am Hi all,
I'm trying to develop a reasonable criteria for determining meaningless or insignificant coincidence vs. possible or even probable connection or causation, when that connection or causation may not be verifiable by empirical means. Yes, I'm thinking of religious attribution, but not that subject alone -- I'm hoping to find a more general theory or method that can be applied to other topics. Ideas?
Thanks