Philosophy Now Forum

Scott Mayers wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:Scott. Do you actually understand the difference between linear and non-linear determinism? You're inventing complications where no complications exist. The future is a blank slate because determinism in naturally occurring systems is non-linear and that's all there is to it.

If its non-linear, you'd be accepting my interpretation since the multi-verse idea is just such. I'm not sure what your making a distinction on? A dimension exceeding a line is a plane; a dimension exceeding a plane is space; a dimension exceeding space is time; and a dimension exceeding times are completely different contingent worlds.

No it just means that actions can result in many effects. It does not automatically lead to a break down to the laws of thermodynamics to create second by second an infinite number of universes.
It just means that when I spill some hot water, scolding myself in not the only effect. The floor gets wet too. The water might soak a newspaper on the table and lead to the fibres of the paper disintegrating. I might also shout in pain and the dog jumps up farts and scares the cat.
Predicting all these actions is impossible. But that does not mean that effects that did not happen, have to happen in another universe. Such an idea is silly.

Scott Mayers wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:Scott. Do you actually understand the difference between linear and non-linear determinism? You're inventing complications where no complications exist. The future is a blank slate because determinism in naturally occurring systems is non-linear and that's all there is to it.

If its non-linear, you'd be accepting my interpretation since the multi-verse idea is just such. I'm not sure what your making a distinction on? A dimension exceeding a line is a plane; a dimension exceeding a plane is space; a dimension exceeding space is time; and a dimension exceeding times are completely different contingent worlds.

This is nothing more than pseudo-mystical bullshit. Infinity is an unrealisable mathematical abstraction but the universe we live in already allows for an almost infinite index of future possibilities because of the nature of non-linear determinism. However the past remains irrevocably fixed because what's done cannot be undone. Do you regard is as miraculous that you were born? Of all the persons who could have been conceived in the long-ago act of love which gave rise to your existence why is it that the you won the chocolates instead of some other bloke? Was this an event of such staggering unlikelihood that all the persons who you could have been but aren't must also exist somewhere in a parallel universe. Is this your story, Scott.?

Obvious Leo wrote:

Scott Mayers wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:Scott. Do you actually understand the difference between linear and non-linear determinism? You're inventing complications where no complications exist. The future is a blank slate because determinism in naturally occurring systems is non-linear and that's all there is to it.

If its non-linear, you'd be accepting my interpretation since the multi-verse idea is just such. I'm not sure what your making a distinction on? A dimension exceeding a line is a plane; a dimension exceeding a plane is space; a dimension exceeding space is time; and a dimension exceeding times are completely different contingent worlds.

This is nothing more than pseudo-mystical bullshit. Infinity is an unrealisable mathematical abstraction but the universe we live in already allows for an almost infinite index of future possibilities because of the nature of non-linear determinism. However the past remains irrevocably fixed because what's done cannot be undone. Do you regard is as miraculous that you were born? Of all the persons who could have been conceived in the long-ago act of love which gave rise to your existence why is it that the you won the chocolates instead of some other bloke? Was this an event of such staggering unlikelihood that all the persons who you could have been but aren't must also exist somewhere in a parallel universe. Is this your story, Scott.?

Your trying to force me to speak in your terms here. What is your definitions of "determinism", "linear determinism" and "non-linear determinism"? I've already mentioned that there are distinct meanings even given any dictionary definitions. But because of this, people keep transferring from each different meaning without recognizing it.

I don't know where you get any mystical interpretation upon me here?

Scott Mayers wrote:
I don't know where you get any mystical interpretation upon me here?

How about;"A dimension exceeding a line is a plane; a dimension exceeding a plane is space; a dimension exceeding space is time; and a dimension exceeding times are completely different contingent worlds."?

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Scott Mayers wrote:
I don't know where you get any mystical interpretation upon me here?

How about;"A dimension exceeding a line is a plane; a dimension exceeding a plane is space; a dimension exceeding space is time; and a dimension exceeding times are completely different contingent worlds."?

This only tells me that you don't know enough about math. A "dimension" is the set of anything in a unique direction not found in a previous set of dimensions. Thus a point is technically a dimension that has no space [Euclid Zeroth Dimension], a succession of points define a line as another dimension (we usually misname as the 'first') [x-axis Cartesian], then a plane, etc. How is this remotely mystical?

Scott Mayers wrote:This only tells me that you don't know enough about math. A "dimension" is the set of anything in a unique direction not found in a previous set of dimensions. Thus a point is technically a dimension that has no space [Euclid Zeroth Dimension], a succession of points define a line as another dimension (we usually misname as the 'first') [x-axis Cartesian], then a plane, etc. How is this remotely mystical?

You correctly define dimensions as mathematical objects and specifically as a system of relational co-ordinates. However you then make a leap of faith and place an infinite index of possibilities within these mathematical objects and grant them the status of physically real phenomena in universes which lie beyond the reach of scientific or philosophical enquiry. I thought I was being rather kind in merely describing this Platonist horseshit as mystical nonsense. In the vernacular of my culture a host of less polite alternative labels spring readily to mind, none of which would reflect well on your fluency with the tools of logic.

Scott Mayers wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Scott Mayers wrote:
I don't know where you get any mystical interpretation upon me here?

How about;"A dimension exceeding a line is a plane; a dimension exceeding a plane is space; a dimension exceeding space is time; and a dimension exceeding times are completely different contingent worlds."?

This only tells me that you don't know enough about math. A "dimension" is the set of anything in a unique direction not found in a previous set of dimensions. Thus a point is technically a dimension that has no space [Euclid Zeroth Dimension], a succession of points define a line as another dimension (we usually misname as the 'first') [x-axis Cartesian], then a plane, etc. How is this remotely mystical?

Maths is a human conceit which you mistake for reality: that is mystical bollocks. This has been done for thousands of years. It never got anywhere because reality ends up smashing it in the face. Metaphysics is only conceptual.
When you figure out that maths is nothing more than an attempt to describe reality then you might realise how silly this all looks - and brings nothing to the table.

Obvious Leo wrote:

Scott Mayers wrote:This only tells me that you don't know enough about math. A "dimension" is the set of anything in a unique direction not found in a previous set of dimensions. Thus a point is technically a dimension that has no space [Euclid Zeroth Dimension], a succession of points define a line as another dimension (we usually misname as the 'first') [x-axis Cartesian], then a plane, etc. How is this remotely mystical?

You correctly define dimensions as mathematical objects and specifically as a system of relational co-ordinates. However you then make a leap of faith and place an infinite index of possibilities within these mathematical objects and grant them the status of physically real phenomena in universes which lie beyond the reach of scientific or philosophical enquiry. I thought I was being rather kind in merely describing this Platonist horseshit as mystical nonsense. In the vernacular of my culture a host of less polite alternative labels spring readily to mind, none of which would reflect well on your fluency with the tools of logic.

Look, it is as simple as this:

Everything we discuss regarding what is 'true' or 'false' requires logic regardless to make connections of input premises to any conclusion. It is way more absurd for ones who support any observation based argument that draws some conclusion through logic but yet only treat the concepts of logic as unreal themselves. It is no different than one declaring that they can read another person's mind because they have some special tool in their repertoire that enables them to do it. And while we might obviously laugh at those who use such tools without accountability, there are just as many who'd appear to be able to be effective predictors of others upon their own wisdom to know how people behave predictably.

You and Hobbes may argue for the non-existence of logic as anything real; but then you don't have right to use any reason to bother defending anything using logic, period!! And this is the mysticism that I actually have a justification to accuse upon you with more force because I actually DO believe logic is real!

I'm not denying either the reality or the validity of the PROCESSES of logic but merely pointing out that the objects of enquiry to which these processes are applied have no ontological status. This has been basic and mainstream philosophy since the dawn of time but if you wish to present the counter-argument you are certainly free to do so. I will, however, remind you that it is you who is defending a minority position and thus the age-old maxim in philosophy must be applied that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Kindly present this proof by showing me these other universes.

The entire multiverse argument rests on a single flawed a priori assumption, namely that our universe is made according to a suite of physical laws. This is a load of crap and no such laws of physics exist outside the consciousness of an observer. In principle this very same observer could contrive a virtually infinite suite of laws (universes) to account for exactly the same set of empirical data so the question which physics is asking is tautologous.

Physics asks itself why the universe should conform to this particular suite of physical laws and mathematical constants and not some other but this is the stupidest question ever asked in the history of science. The question is tautologous. The universe conforms to this particular suite of laws because that's the way we've chosen to model our observations of its behaviour. How the fuck could it do otherwise?

Obvious Leo wrote:I'm not denying either the reality or the validity of the PROCESSES of logic but merely pointing out that the objects of enquiry to which these processes are applied have no ontological status. This has been basic and mainstream philosophy since the dawn of time but if you wish to present the counter-argument you are certainly free to do so. I will, however, remind you that it is you who is defending a minority position and thus the age-old maxim in philosophy must be applied that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Kindly present this proof by showing me these other universes.

You already asserted your preference to favor reality as ONLY a function of time without space as meaning anything. So I do understand your bias. My claim is as equally a function of many people's thoughts. I don't believe that truth with respect to reality is democratically assessed. If you favor the practical aspect of formalizing truth democratically, then why don't you just accept that some god is real too? Certainly the status of the majority favors that God is a real thing.

I propose nothing extraordinary. I simply recognize a need to place things in categories akin to accounting. There you use a debit and credit procedure where any posited number placed in one column must correspond with the same in the other. However, with your approach (as with most), the way you only accept what is posited as REAL while ignoring what is NON-REAL lacks an ability to show one's accountability to a totality that has no mind. Your thinking is no different than those believing in a God only approach as they posit all of nature as being perfectly "good" (as the term, "God", itself originates). Then they run into the trouble of trying to prove how "Bad" (or "evil") exists from the origin of such "good".

Thus I take a different approach. By making places where things can be placed categorically as Real and NON-Real, it recognizes that for anything one posits as real, this naturally implies a logical complementary place we define as non-real. Then I place both what is "real" and "non-real" under the title, "Totality", and can find accountability to how I argue. The categories are both "real" and meaningful. It is also a type of conservation principle as I apply it to everything too.

In a way, I'm confused at how you believe the 'process' is considered somehow more real as in your preference to default 'time' as all that is real yet deny that logic is less real than the very objects of reality you also question (since you deny spaces as being real, for instance)?

Obvious Leo wrote:The entire multiverse argument rests on a single flawed a priori assumption, namely that our universe is made according to a suite of physical laws. This is a load of crap and no such laws of physics exist outside the consciousness of an observer.

If we have no 'laws', then why would you even be against me with regards to assuming absolute nothing to reality as having justice to be a product of both consistency and inconsistency, reality and non-reality, contradiction as a functional motivator or 'cause' of everything? You're own a priori assumption of causation too is no more valid either as it insists that a consistent truth about everything is certain. This is thus a law you impose upon reality too.

Scott Mayers wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:The entire multiverse argument rests on a single flawed a priori assumption, namely that our universe is made according to a suite of physical laws. This is a load of crap and no such laws of physics exist outside the consciousness of an observer.

If we have no 'laws', then why would you even be against me with regards to assuming absolute nothing to reality as having justice to be a product of both consistency and inconsistency, reality and non-reality, contradiction as a functional motivator or 'cause' of everything? You're own a priori assumption of causation too is no more valid either as it insists that a consistent truth about everything is certain. This is thus a law you impose upon reality too.

Excellent. We've put the subject back on topic and now we're talking about determinism again. Please explain how our universe can be comprehensible if effects are not preceded by causes in an orderly and generative fashion.

Obvious Leo wrote:

Scott Mayers wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:The entire multiverse argument rests on a single flawed a priori assumption, namely that our universe is made according to a suite of physical laws. This is a load of crap and no such laws of physics exist outside the consciousness of an observer.

If we have no 'laws', then why would you even be against me with regards to assuming absolute nothing to reality as having justice to be a product of both consistency and inconsistency, reality and non-reality, contradiction as a functional motivator or 'cause' of everything? You're own a priori assumption of causation too is no more valid either as it insists that a consistent truth about everything is certain. This is thus a law you impose upon reality too.

Excellent. We've put the subject back on topic and now we're talking about determinism again. Please explain how our universe can be comprehensible if effects are not preceded by causes in an orderly and generative fashion.

"Our universe" is comprehensible because it is our local perception of reality based on consistency, which is a function of law. But just as you only perceive your particular reality as a part of a bigger world in which you do not nor cannot know everything and everywhere at once, you have to extend this to humanity's perception of our [unique version of reality ("our universe") too. Also, you have to accept that if we find 'truth' itself variable, such as that you could be alive in the 20th Century AND not alive in the very same 20th Century, this proves that these options actually exist and therefore the logical universal (the 20th Century in the example, for instance) exists to contain such truths as well as falsities.

So here, I don't disagree that "our universe" has consistency....is ordered and generative. But just as evolution weeds out those factors that don't 'fit' within a given environment, totality only allows consistent factors to our contingent universe because they 'fit' with that consistency. This doesn't mean that there are not places where such consistencies do not exist distinct from our one universe. For instance, we know from evolution that life involves way more deaths of species that act as entities that have died out enabling our existence. But would you deny that those living creatures actually never existed just because only we are the ones who have survived? You do this when you deny that other possible worlds exist by your bias not to recognize that dead ones could just as reasonably existed.

Remember, this works when there are NO Gods because only a totality without would have the capacity NOT to care originally what is real, not real, consistent, non-consistent, a something or a nothing. So there ARE multiple universes by necessity in logic, something you don't believe is real but that I do. Totality beginning with no essence would thus have to both allow an infinite set of worlds that both exist and do not exist. To pretend that we are the ONLY universe reinstates humanity here as a special factor favored by this totality, which reduces to being just another God again.

What is determinate of totality is based on it being both capable of being both determinate AND indeterminate equally by coincidence. But it is also not the case that even determinate AND indeterminate causation can be perceived in one place at one time (something akin to the Uncertainty Principle), and so this implies that in any such unique perspective, that perspective becomes either determinate or indeterminate [...not always evident to be both at the same time].

Scott Mayers wrote: "Our universe" is comprehensible because it is our local perception of reality based on consistency, which is a function of law.

This statement is false. Comprehensibility is purely a function of the universal doctrine of causality and your teleological embellishment violates the principle of sufficient reason. Assuming a law-derived reality is a statement of belief in a pre-determined template for such a reality whose origins by definition must lie external to the universe itself. Such a statement is not a philosophical statement because it is untestable.

It's time to apply the blowtorch to the soles of your feet, Scott. Are you claiming that our universe is an entity which was caused to come into existence by a causal agent which exists external to it?

Scott Mayers wrote:This doesn't mean that there are not places where such consistencies do not exist distinct from our one universe.

Neither does it mean that there is no china teapot orbiting the sun somewhere between here and Mars. Attempting to derive meaning from a counter-factual event is a logical absurdity and positing an infinite number of universes just so this one can be accounted for is infantile.