Philosophy Now Forum

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 7:00 pm All ontological reasoning is effectively a religion.

Why?

CIN wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 7:23 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 7:00 pm All ontological reasoning is effectively a religion.

Why?

Because anything you call "ontology" is a mind projection.

At the most fundamental level -"beneath" physics - you find Mathematics. The Standard Model is still just a model - it's the map, not the teritory so if you want to maintain any posture as a "realist" (or an ontologist - same thing) you have no choice but to adopt Platonism or some sort of Mathematical realism thus willingly promoting your epistemic model to ontological status.

That's how most scientists land at anti-realism. Or just read Heidegger’s views on (what he calls) the onto-theological tradition of Western metaphysics. He's basically using it as a pejorative to critique and equate all ontological reasoning as theology.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 7:25 pm

CIN wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 7:23 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 7:00 pm All ontological reasoning is effectively a religion.

Why?

Because anything you call "ontology" is a mind projection.

At the most fundamental level -"beneath" physics - you find Mathematics. The Standard Model is still just a model - it's the map, not the teritory so if you want to maintain any posture as a "realist" (or an ontologist - same thing) you have no choice but to adopt Platonism or some sort of Mathematical realism thus willingly promoting your epistemic model to ontological status.

That's how most scientists land at anti-realism. Or just read Heidegger’s views on (what he calls) the onto-theological tradition of Western metaphysics. He's basically using it as a pejorative to critique and equate all ontological reasoning as theology.

Would it be correct in your opinion to make what you say more precise ? Like; reality is created either by living beings or by God, but not both.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 10:21 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 9:00 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 12:32 am
Water is what it is by virtue of its being experienced. Did you read George Berkeley? To be is to be perceived? Except for the fact he was a bishop he was the most sceptical of philosophers.

I can see your point of view which is commonsense. I cannot demand that you see my point of view which is counter intuitive.

Put it another way to PH;
I can see your point of view which is commonsense [and kindergarten level].
I cannot demand that you [so kindergartenish] see my point of view [Phd level] which is counter intuitive.

Berkeley's esse est percipi was supposed to demonstrate the existence of an omni-god.

Berkeley's argument has two phases;
In phase one i.e. esse est percipi that primary and secondary qualities do not exist by themselves as independent platonic ideals is very valid and sound.
Show me why Berkeley is wrong on this?
But to ground it on perception, i.e. merely one function of human nature is too crude.

Berkeley is the hero who refuted dogmatic 'materialism' [everything is made of matter] and force materialists to be physicalists [whatever that can be proven by Physics is real, i.e. scientifically real].

Basically Berkeley phase one argument is the same as that of Quantum Physics, i.e. if there are no humans there is no mind dependent reality. If there are no humans there is no moon.

The Universe Is Not Locally Real, and the Physics Nobel Prize Winners Proved It
This is, of course, deeply contrary to our everyday experiences.
As Albert Einstein once bemoaned to a friend, “Do you really believe the moon is not there when you are not looking at it?”
To adapt a phrase from author Douglas Adams, the demise of local realism has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... proved-it/

It is his leap and extended argument from esse est percipi to God exist that is not valid and unsound.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 1:01 pm Questions for VA - and any other PhD-level quantum physicists following this discussion.

1 Is quantum indeterminacy a fact - a feature of reality - or merely a product of human cognition - itself a product of quantum indeterminacy?

Whatever is fact is conditioned upon a specific FSK.
QM is conditioned upon the QM-Scientific FSK.
Therefore QM theories are scientific facts and truths.

2 Who or what observes the observer effect? Who or what is it that stands above the quantum fray? Is it perhaps the mythical subject, or the equally mythical mind - or, perhaps, Berkeley's omni-god?

If you understand how science works you would never raise the above question.

3 How can we get from quantum mechanics to the fact that X is morally right (good)/wrong (bad, evil)? What valid and sound arguments get us from the one to the other?

What is morality is the avoiding of evil to enable good.
The inherent biological fact of 'ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans [to avoid evil] is an objective moral fact within the moral FSK.
This objective physical biological-moral fact is grounded upon the physical brain, neurons, algorithms, DNA, atoms and quarks.
What grounds quarks as objective is the QM FSK.
That is how we link objective moral facts within the moral FSK to QM via the QM FSK.

Thus if there is no QM FSK and QM facts, then my whole moral FSK falls apart, e.g. if a mind independent God or mind-independent things [your stance] are brought into the picture.

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 9:44 pm Would it be correct in your opinion to make what you say more precise ? Like; reality is created either by living beings or by God, but not both.

I think it depends on the audience. To some people there's no distinction between the living beings who create our consensus reality and God.

God is just another name for The Creator of Reality.
We are The Creators of (our consensus) Reality therefore we are God.

It's the whole self-resemblance game (made in God's image).

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 1:01 pm Questions for VA - and any other PhD-level quantum physicists following this discussion.

1 Is quantum indeterminacy a fact - a feature of reality - or merely a product of human cognition - itself a product of quantum indeterminacy?

It is considered a facet of reality not dependent on human cognition.....but!!!!!
There is the many worlds hypothesis. Some physicists are bothered by indeterminism and one solution to maintain a global determinism is if there is a kind of multiverse. So, any collapse of the wave function in a specific universe will be probablisitic, but in the sum total of universes it returns to determinism. So, there's an asterisk around indeterminism. But if you follow the research, the results are not dependant on cognition in terms of statistics.

2 Who or what observes the observer effect? Who or what is it that stands above the quantum fray? Is it perhaps the mythical subject, or the equally mythical mind - or, perhaps, Berkeley's omni-god?

I couldn't understand this question.

3 How can we get from quantum mechanics to the fact that X is morally right (good)/wrong (bad, evil)? What valid and sound arguments get us from the one to the other?

I don't see how one can.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 8:12 am God is just another name for The Creator of Reality.
We are The Creators of (our consensus) Reality therefore we are God.

Sounds like ontological assertions. So, then, according to you, religion. In any case, the justification for these assertions would include ontology.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 9:02 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 8:12 am God is just another name for The Creator of Reality.
We are The Creators of (our consensus) Reality therefore we are God.

Sounds like ontological assertions. So, then, according to you, religion. In any case, the justification for these assertions would include ontology.

Sounds like you've confused my epistemology for an ontology.

I am not making any "assertions". I am just expressing my understanding of what "Reality" is. Self-expression requires no justification. It's true by virtue of Design/Creation. I said what I said because I wanted to say precisely what I said.

In any case - you seem to be claiming that self-expression requires justification. Could you justify that claim?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 9:41 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 9:02 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 8:12 am God is just another name for The Creator of Reality.
We are The Creators of (our consensus) Reality therefore we are God.

Sounds like ontological assertions. So, then, according to you, religion. In any case, the justification for these assertions would include ontology.

Sounds like you've confused my epistemology for an ontology.

Could be. What's reality?

I am not making any "assertions". I am just expressing my understanding of what "Reality" is.

OK, so could you point to a post where someone is saying something that 'require's justification' and is a statement that is not self-expression? So, I can see the difference(s).

Self-expression requires no justification.

So, that was also a self-expressive statement and not an assertion or is this the justification...

It's true by virtue of Design/Creation.

Could you expand on that?

I said what I said because I wanted to say precisely what I said.

I guess I assumed that. I mean, I suppose someone might realize later they worded not as well as intended or somehow in a misleading way, but I tend to assume such things about other posters' sentences and posts.

In any case - you seem to be claiming that self-expression requires justification.

I was just expressing myself. And, well, also...seeing what it would lead to. Probing you could say. Not all my curiosity is posed as questions. Questions can elicit information. So can statements, especially when one paraphrases or includes what others have said or might have said. Triangulation is another word I might have included here but decided not to.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 11:41 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 9:41 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 9:02 am Sounds like ontological assertions. So, then, according to you, religion. In any case, the justification for these assertions would include ontology.

Sounds like you've confused my epistemology for an ontology.

Could be. What's reality?

It's a collective noun Invented by humans. It reifies ontology in language; and in the interlocutor's respecitve minds so that we can have a conversation about it.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth...

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 11:41 am OK, so could you point to a post where someone is saying something that 'require's justification' and is a statement that is not self-expression? So, I can see the difference(s).

OK. I refer you to your very own statements.

You are expressing yourself in terms of "justification". You seem to be aware of the difference already.

So go ahead and express a justification of reality; or existence; or The Universe; or The Ontology; or whatever else you call it.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 11:41 am So, that was also a self-expressive statement and not an assertion or is this the justification...

You tell me. "Justification" and "assertion" is part of your vocabulary.

I haven't used those terms in my self-expression. You did.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 11:41 am

It's true by virtue of Design/Creation.

Could you expand on that?

Sure. I am using language to express myself. I created/designed my expressions deliberately. And so what I am saying is necessarily a tautology given the definitions I am intentionally using.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 11:41 am I guess I assumed that. I mean, I suppose someone might realize later they worded not as well as intended or somehow in a misleading way, but I tend to assume such things about other posters' sentences and posts.

It was worded the best way possible given my current understanding of my interlocutor.

To come to realize that there is a better way to word it requires me to learn something new about my interlocutor by way of continued interaction.

I can't do better if I don't know better.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 11:41 am I was just expressing myself. And, well, also...seeing what it would lead to. Probing you could say. Not all my curiosity is posed as questions. Questions can elicit information. So can statements, especially when one paraphrases or includes what others have said or might have said. Triangulation is another word I might have included here but decided not to.

Sure. So when you expressed yourself in terms of expecting "justification" from your interlocutors - what is it that you demand from them? More words?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 11:54 am It's a collective noun Invented by humans in order to refer to everything all at once.

Refers to 'everything at once'. Is that the phrase you use when other people would use reality?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 11:41 am OK, so could you point to a post where someone is saying something that 'require's justification' and is a statement that is not self-expression? So, I can see the difference(s).

OK. I refer you to your very own statements.

You are expressing yourself in terms of "justification". You seem to be aware of the difference already.

So, other than when people have mentioned 'justification' could you give me an example, perhaps in one of the posts you responded to in this thread, where it was not just self-expression, but required justification.

And, good to know: if justification is mentioned, then the statements with that word require justification. And other exceptions? (my previous request for an example may answer this also).

IOW so far it would seem that most statements here at ILP do not require any justification. They are expressive. I'll modify this if things like 'justification' as examples of exceptions multiply.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 11:41 am So, that was also a self-expressive statement and not an assertion or is this the justification...

You tell me. "Justification" and "assertion" is part of your vocabulary. I am not the one using those terms.
I haven't used those terms in my self-expression.

No, not with me here, but you do use them. Justification is fairly easy to find, and I give a sample below, a little spread out over time. Assertion seems to be embroiled in discussions of assertions in your posts, so I'll leave that out.

The justification for my belief in free will is easy: the neurons in my brain fire in just such a way that my mouth opens and I say I have free will. What choice do I have?

That's not a justification of any sort! That's an argumentum ad populum AND an appeal to the authority.

This requires justification. For your claim to be true red must be ontological.

If you begin with the ASSUMPTION that "everything is different" then sameness requires justification.
if you begin with the ASSUMPTION that "everything is the same" then difference requires justification.

It seems like with some statements it requires justification or can fail to be justified. With others not. What are the criteria?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 11:41 am

It's true by virtue of Design/Creation.

Could you expand on that?

Sure. I am using language to express myself. I created/designed my utterances deliberately. And so what I am saying is necessarily a tautology given the definitions I am using.

OK, thanks.

It was worded the best way possible given my current understanding of my interlocutor.

To come to realize that there is a better way to word it requires me to learn something new about my interlocutor by way of continued interaction.

OK, thanks.

Sure. So when you expressed yourself in terms of expecting "justification" from your interlocutors - what is it that you demand from them? More words?

I didn't express myself as 'expecting justification or "justification" nor did I demand this from them, well, from you.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 8:12 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 9:44 pm Would it be correct in your opinion to make what you say more precise ? Like; reality is created either by living beings or by God, but not both.

I think it depends on the audience. To some people there's no distinction between the living beings who create our consensus reality and God.

God is just another name for The Creator of Reality.
We are The Creators of (our consensus) Reality therefore we are God.

It's the whole self-resemblance game (made in God's image).

I did not intend to be asking you how you or others know what you or they know. I intended to ask you if you agreed that reality is there to be discovered. If existence itself is an ontological question then my question is ontological.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 12:15 pm Refers to 'everything at once'. Is that the phrase you use when other people would use reality?

Reality. Existence. The Universe. The Multiverse. Nature. Ontology. All-There-Is.

Pick your synonyms.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 12:15 pm So, other than when people have mentioned 'justification' could you give me an example, perhaps in one of the posts you responded to in this thread, where it was not just self-expression, but required justification.

How? "Required justification" is a phrase you are using. I don't know what you mean by it. That's why I put the ball back in your court by asking you to justify the requirement for justification.

If you can comply with your own request then I can see what you mean by way of you demonstrating the sort of behaviour you call "justification".

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 12:15 pm And, good to know: if justification is mentioned, then the statements with that word require justification. And other exceptions? (my previous request for an example may answer this also).

Used/mentioned. Potato/potatoh. You are the one talking about justifications.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 12:15 pm IOW so far it would seem that most statements here at ILP do not require any justification. They are expressive. I'll modify this if things like 'justification' as examples of exceptions multiply.

Everything is expressive. But when you request things from other people it would bode well to demonstrate how you would go about fulfilling your own request.

e.g you are helping me help you with producing a "justification" (whatever the hell you think that is).

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 12:15 pm No, not with me here, but you do use them. Justification is fairly easy to find, and I give a sample below, a little spread out over time. Assertion seems to be embroiled in discussions of assertions in your posts, so I'll leave that out.

That's a moot point. What you consider sufficient justification and what I consider sufficient justification may be very different things.

For example: me wnting to say something is sufficient justification for me saying it. But since you are asking me for justification (over and above that) I figure you mean something else by it.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 12:15 pm

The justification for my belief in free will is easy: the neurons in my brain fire in just such a way that my mouth opens and I say I have free will. What choice do I have?

That was an ironic use of "justification". The "justification" contradicts the belief.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 12:15 pm

That's not a justification of any sort! That's an argumentum ad populum AND an appeal to the authority.

That's a different use of "justification" - it's in the context of an argument, not in the context of mere self-expression.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 12:15 pm

This requires justification. For your claim to be true red must be ontological.

That's a different use of "justification". It's in the context of a claim being made.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 12:15 pm

If you begin with the ASSUMPTION that "everything is different" then sameness requires justification.
if you begin with the ASSUMPTION that "everything is the same" then difference requires justification.

Naturally. That's how information/synthesis works - by contrasting with the default position.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 12:15 pm It seems like with some statements you expect justification. With others not. What are the criteria?

They vary. Depending on the context. More often than not - the criteria are my interlocutor's own critreria applied back to them. Because recursion/self-application is my thing...

The higher you expect me to jump to "justify" my self-expression - the higher I'll make you jump to defend yours.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 12:15 pm I didn't express myself as 'expecting justification or "justification" not did I demand this from them, well, from you.

Then I don't know what you meant when you said "In any case, the justification for these assertions would include ontology."

But from where I am looking Ontology means exactly the same thing as Reality, or Existence etc. etc. etc.

What justifies those?

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 12:31 pm I did not intend to be asking you how you or others know what you or they know. I intended to ask you if you agreed that reality is there to be discovered. If existence itself is an ontological question then my question is ontological.

You are basically asking me whether there's an unobservable universe to be discovered beyond the observable universe.

You might as well ask "Does the unobservable universe exist?" I don't know!

Notice how despite your best attempts to ask me an ontological question I've still only managed to offer you an epistemic answer.
In fact, I can answer questions about existence in the affirmative e.g Do planets exist? Yes.
But I can't answer questions about existence in the negative. Do Gods exist? Maybe. Keep searching.

Hence why the onto-theological tradition is misguided...