Could any being without extension and form exist?

[STT]

It is pretty obvious that “[does not] have form independent of a thinker” should at least mean that the object ceases to exist when no one is thinking of it (there is no thinker), and that the thinker gets to decide what the form is going to be.

Yes, I agree.

Otherwise an object clearly has form somewhat independently of the thinker. Yet, apparently, that was not what you meant, since you do not think any “Little Johnny” can decide that 2+2=5, while claiming that numbers have form “not independently of thinker”.

Numbers are abstract objects hence they are underlying of the reality. They don’t have form though independent of a thinker.

No, I do not agree with that definition. But that’s beside the point. The point is that you also do not really agree with that definition.

I do agree with that definition. Why do you think like that?

That completely misses the point. The point is that you cannot explain what changed when the Holy Roman Empire was disbanded. In your view, it was an abstract object and it stayed an abstract object. Thus, according to you, nothing has changed. And yet, it is clear that something has changed.

What has changed? The abstract objects mostly are not subject to time. Roman Empire existence however is subject to time as an abstract object.

If reality exists without a thinker, then so does any “underlying truth”. And thus you cannot keep all those claims - something has to go.

Actually, there is one argument for existence of God that points out that the only available place for abstract objects (like numbers) is God’s mind. But, since you deny God’s existence, abstract objects become mysterious to you…

There is nothing mysterious about abstract objects. As I mentioned before they are underlying truth of reality without them our experiences become empty. You don’t need the God’s mind to find a place for abstract objects. Moreover I am not a disbeliever.

That does not answer the question. In other places you have claimed that hearing and thinking also count as experiencing, so visibility shouldn’t be special here.

That is true. They are all part of our experience. Experiencing something without shape is meaningless. I think we are lost on this part.

That does not answer the question. You have also claimed that angels cannot be imagined and thus cannot be experienced. Are you taking that claim back?

Angels are either abstract objects or they are real. Which one do you pick? Firs, it means that they just have form inside the mind of a thinker otherwise they have forms independent of thinker.

That does not answer the question. The question was not “Can you assert that something has form?”. We know that you can. In words of Hamlet, it is “as easy as lying”… No, the question was what those forms of aleph-zero, imaginary unit and quaternions actually are. You should give actual geometrical shapes, since that’s how you understand forms.

Does the content of what you hear has a geometrical shape? No. But you can distinguish between different content. Why? Because they have forms.

Also, that begs the question - you haven’t shown that distinguishing objects requires difference of form yet.

That is an obvious premise.

That does not answer the question. (Are you beginning to see a pattern here?) You still are not giving meters, thus we only have bits and characters. And if something can be measured in bits and not in meters, then it has no definite geometrical shape - and all kinds of problems for your philosophy follow.

Well, yes the content of a book can be represented as a set of characters or bits.

That does not answer the question. The question asked where do you get a premise like “Form is necessary for us to distinguish objects.”. Your answer does not address it in any way.

I just tried to explain that abstract objects have form inside a thinker’s mind as hearing has by providing some example. I think that the premise “Form is necessary for us to distinguish objects” is obvious.

That does not answer the question (yes, neither here nor above). You haven’t explained how to imagine aleph-zero, imaginary unit or quaternions.

They could be simply a part of our experience.

Neither have you taken back the claims that would seem to imply that imagining them is necessary.

We cannot imagine/experience something which is not underlying of the reality.

The obvious reason for that is that none of those objects can be imagined - and that’s fine. However, your philosophy demands that imagining them would be possible…

A thing is an abstract object if it is the underlying of the reality and it could be experienced or imagined otherwise it does not exist.

To be continued…

 

[STT]

From the last part…

In your profile you write: “Religion: Seeking the Truth”. If you really are seeking the truth, you should try to find out the weakest points of your current “best guess”. Instead, you keep trying to evade the challenges directed at them. That’s a terrible strategy for seeking. In fact, it is not a very good strategy of defence either (a couple of “I don’t know.” would have looked much better).

I think I am well open to accept the weak point of my thoughts and improve them.

So, if you are still going to evade difficult questions and challenges, I’m afraid that there isn’t much we can expect to get from this discussion…

I think we got a lot.

 

[EnosJadon]

If the “non-I” has caused me

First, let me address the idea that if the “I” can’t exist without the “non-I”, then the non-I must be the cause of the I. This isn’t necessarily true, although that conclusion might seem self-evident. To illustrate this, let’s consider quantum mechanics, which you may or may not agree with, but none-the-less it raises the same issue of causation. Quantum mechanics says that we live in an observer created reality, the only unanswered question being, what exactly constitutes an observer. Does the universe as a whole constitute an observer, or does each individual consciousness constitute an observer? Who knows? But for the purposes of this illustration it doesn’t matter, because the problem is the same either way.

Here’s the problem, if the observer creates the reality, and the observer is part of that reality, does the observer in effect create themselves? This is a paradox that might be outside the scope of this thread, but I use it as an illustration of the notion that when it comes to the non-I and the I, it may be presumptuous to conclude that one can be said to cause the other. For the moment, perhaps we should just accept that they’re two parts of the whole. One is the part which perceives things, and the other is the things perceived. The “I” and the “non-I”.

…it is clear to me that at any given moment I am not conscious of all the “non-I”, but only of a variable small part of it.

But there is implicit within the observed, the existence of the unobserved. For example you have a computer, and although you may not be consciously aware of its origins, the necessity for some form of origins are implicit within the existence of the computer itself. And so reality could be said to consist not only of what you perceive to be, but also all of the accompanying things that you don’t perceive to be, but which must be. Thus in some form, the unknown is contained within the known. And there may be a very simple reason why this is true. That reason being, that you couldn’t be conscious if it wasn’t true. It’s the classic anthropomorphic principle. In other words, consciousness can only exist in a reality that’s coherent, consistent, and ordered. One where what isn’t seen is always consistent with what is. Because otherwise all that you have is chaos, and chaos isn’t conducive to consciousness. So what’s known, must be consistent with what’s unknown, because if it wasn’t, then coherency wouldn’t exist, and cognitive dissonance would destroy consciousness before it ever became conscious. Order must prevail over disorder.

I am aware that “I” and the variable “non-I” are the poles of my reality. However, though I am aware (without concept) of myself, I do not have a concept of “What I am”. Therefore, the first thing does not require the second.

If I’m interpreting this correctly, then the answer to this question lies within the answer to the last question. Implicit within what you know, are those things that are consistent with what you know. In much the same way that being aware of the existence of your computer implies a context consistent with where that computer came from. Likewise, an awareness of the “I” may necessitate the existence of the “non-I”. Consciousness may simply be unable to exist without a coherent context for what it is, and where it came from. The two things, consciousness and context, may be inextricably linked. You can’t have one without the other.

The thought that I might be producing reality without noticing it goes beyond any of my experiences.

I can only reiterate, that there are things of which you’re unaware, that must be true, based upon the things of which you are aware. Beginning simply with the concept of “I am” the mind may spontaneously create everything else. Subsequently, that which you will to be, must always lie in subordination to that which must be.

I am aware of my finiteness and my fragility.

This may in fact be the reason for everything. Perhaps consciousness cannot conceive of the infinite. It cannot conceive that it has always existed. And it’s this inability to conceive of the impossible that leads to a cognitive dissonance which is reflected in the world around you. The discord in the world may simply be a reflection of the discord which exists in the consciousness that’s creating it.

 

[meltzerboy]

This problem is related to the fact that to my opinion a being without an extension and a form cannot exist. In another hand we believe in existence of spiritual beings such as soul, Angels, Demons and God that they don’t have any extension and form. So I can not reconcile my opinion with the idea of spirituality. What do you think?

G-d is unlike any other being, including angels and demons. So, yes, G-d can exist without extension and form, outside of time and space, and in a state of perpetual being with no beginning and no end. Add to G-d’s omnipresence, His infinite love and mercy, omniscience, and omnipotence, which includes the creation of the universe, and you have a completely unique Being.

 

[STT]

G-d is unlike any other being, including angels and demons. So, yes, G-d can exist without extension and form, outside of time and space, and in a state of perpetual being with no beginning and no end. Add to G-d’s omnipresence, His infinite love and mercy, omniscience, and omnipotence, which includes the creation of the universe, and you have a completely unique Being.

Just think of Angels. We believe that they think. Thinking however is a process. This process deals with information. You need form/shape to keep and process information . And you need extension in order to have form. This means that Angels cannot think because they have no form and extension. Therefore they are not a being.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Just think of Angels. We believe that they think. Thinking however is a process. This process deals with information. You need form/shape to keep and process information . And you need extension in order to have form. This means that Angels cannot think because they have no form and extension. Therefore they are not a being.

Oh! This machine got stuck… I knew it could not be a human being. It was too extravagant for that.

 

[STT]

Oh! This machine got stuck… I knew it could not be a human being. It was too extravagant for that.

Yes, that machine doesn’t work.

 

[ericc]

I have visions so I know how they look likes. Some sort of them are like hologram. You can even touch them or to be touched in some other sort.

In the case of the Marian apparitions, several people saw the same thing. Unfortunately, she wasn’t near enough to be touched. Several received messages. So she exist since she met your requirements of form and information transfer.

How do we know your experience of visions is real? Did others also experience the same vision or is it you alone? If you can touch them, are you able to secure them physically? But in any case, whether you can or not does not lead to your conclusion that formless beings can not exist. You have still have not proven your case.

Form means shape and extension means spatiality.

No.

Any being has to have these things in common, form, extension and stuff. You need extension and stuff to have form. You cannot have a being without form.

That is your allegation. How do you know that a being must have form? You only have your current experience to go by it. How do you then define a being? A super powerful being can choose to remain invisible, yet communicate with another via dreams, visions, voices, angels etc. And if need to, appear in human flesh form , about 2000 years ago.

Just think of Angels. We believe that they think. Thinking however is a process. This process deals with information. You need form/shape to keep and process information . And you need extension in order to have form. This means that Angels cannot think because they have no form and extension. Therefore they are not a being.

You are imposing your own definition what constitute a being. Biblical accounts say that angels can be seen and can communicate with human kind. Even with that low level information, we can deduce that they do take form of a kind that can be seen and heard and give instructions and can be wrestled with. That will meet your definition of form doesn’t it?

 

[STT]

In the case of the Marian apparitions, several people saw the same thing. Unfortunately, she wasn’t near enough to be touched. Several received messages. So she exist since she met your requirements of form and information transfer.

How do we know your experience of visions is real?

They become a part of your life once they repeat enough. You believe on them like anything else in your life when they are consistent.

Did others also experience the same vision or is it you alone?

No. It is completely personal.

If you can touch them, are you able to secure them physically?

No like that. At least in my case.

But in any case, whether you can or not does not lead to your conclusion that formless beings can not exist. You have still have not proven your case.

Can you tell me how a vision could look like if it does not have any form?

That is your allegation. How do you know that a being must have form? You only have your current experience to go by it. How do you then define a being? A super powerful being can choose to remain invisible, yet communicate with another via dreams, visions, voices, angels etc. And if need to, appear in human flesh form , about 2000 years ago.

You can be invisible but you need to have form.

You are imposing your own definition what constitute a being. Biblical accounts say that angels can be seen and can communicate with human kind. Even with that low level information, we can deduce that they do take form of a kind that can be seen and heard and give instructions and can be wrestled with. That will meet your definition of form doesn’t it?

I communicated with Angels too. You could have an inner voice, inspiration, which tell you something. You then have another inspiration about whom you receive a message from, if you ask.

 

[MPat]

Yes, I agree.

No, you do not.

I do agree with that definition. Why do you think like that?

Ah, that’s better. I think you do not agree, because you do not apply it consistently.

That is, I think that it is not OK to “adapt” your position to the question, as you have been doing. Do you agree that it is not OK, or do you think it’s perfectly OK to have a position that is inconsistent, logically self-contradicting, and to pick the propositions from it that happen to be convenient at the moment, while ignoring the others?

As for the specific self-contradiction, let’s look at this:

Numbers are abstract objects hence they are underlying of the reality. They don’t have form though independent of a thinker.

In that case, since you have agreed with my interpretation of your definition, you have to think that the thinker gets to choose the form of numbers. And if “Little Johnny” finds it convenient that two and two would make five, he should be able to choose forms accordingly.

Yet you deny this. That is inconsistent.

What has changed? The abstract objects mostly are not subject to time. Roman Empire existence however is subject to time as an abstract object.

“Abstract objects” as you define them only depend on the thinker. If there is an object that also depends on time, you cannot consistently consider it to be an “abstract object”.

There is nothing mysterious about abstract objects. As I mentioned before they are underlying truth of reality without them our experiences become empty. You don’t need the God’s mind to find a place for abstract objects. Moreover I am not a disbeliever.

I will note that you haven’t even asked what the argument was…

That is true. They are all part of our experience. Experiencing something without shape is meaningless. I think we are lost on this part.

That’s false, as we’ll see:

Does the content of what you hear has a geometrical shape? No. But you can distinguish between different content. Why? Because they have forms.

If you were consistent, you would conclude (correctly) that in such case “geometrical shape” has to be at most one type of a “form”.

That is an obvious premise.

I just tried to explain that abstract objects have form inside a thinker’s mind as hearing has by providing some example. I think that the premise “Form is necessary for us to distinguish objects” is obvious.

Is there some reason why you didn’t actually say so earlier? I was asking for something like that.

Anyway, no, it is not obvious, as it is false, and obviously so (unless you’ll admit that “form” is not necessarily “geometrical shape”). We can distinguish a ball made of steel and a ball made of lead, even if they have the same size and shape. Thus objects can also be distinguished by something other than form (as you understand it).

Well, yes the content of a book can be represented as a set of characters or bits.

OK, maybe you should try to explain my point in your own words… For it looks that you completely miss the point.

They could be simply a part of our experience.

Does that even mean anything?

Anyway, I guess it has been established that aleph-zero, imaginary unit or quaternions cannot be imagined.

We cannot imagine/experience something which is not underlying of the reality.

Really? Does “underlying of reality” actually mean anything?

Otherwise I am happy to hear that if i can imagine a unicorn, then the unicorns are “underlying of reality”.

A thing is an abstract object if it is the underlying of the reality and it could be experienced or imagined otherwise it does not exist.

Once again, does that “underlying of reality” actually mean anything?

I think I am well open to accept the weak point of my thoughts and improve them.

Really? Why do you think so? Do you have any actual evidence to support this claim? For, after all, do you think you would notice if it wasn’t so?

I think we got a lot.

For example…?

 

[JuanFlorencio]

First, let me address the idea that if the “I” can’t exist without the “non-I”, then the non-I must be the cause of the I. This isn’t necessarily true, although that conclusion might seem self-evident. To illustrate this, let’s consider quantum mechanics, which you may or may not agree with, but none-the-less it raises the same issue of causation. Quantum mechanics says that we live in an observer created reality, the only unanswered question being, what exactly constitutes an observer. Does the universe as a whole constitute an observer, or does each individual consciousness constitute an observer? Who knows? But for the purposes of this illustration it doesn’t matter, because the problem is the same either way.

Here’s the problem, if the observer creates the reality, and the observer is part of that reality, does the observer in effect create themselves? This is a paradox that might be outside the scope of this thread, but I use it as an illustration of the notion that when it comes to the non-I and the I, it may be presumptuous to conclude that one can be said to cause the other. For the moment, perhaps we should just accept that they’re two parts of the whole. One is the part which perceives things, and the other is the things perceived. The “I” and the “non-I”.

But there is implicit within the observed, the existence of the unobserved. For example you have a computer, and although you may not be consciously aware of its origins, the necessity for some form of origins are implicit within the existence of the computer itself. And so reality could be said to consist not only of what you perceive to be, but also all of the accompanying things that you don’t perceive to be, but which must be. Thus in some form, the unknown is contained within the known. And there may be a very simple reason why this is true. That reason being, that you couldn’t be conscious if it wasn’t true. It’s the classic anthropomorphic principle. In other words, consciousness can only exist in a reality that’s coherent, consistent, and ordered. One where what isn’t seen is always consistent with what is. Because otherwise all that you have is chaos, and chaos isn’t conducive to consciousness. So what’s known, must be consistent with what’s unknown, because if it wasn’t, then coherency wouldn’t exist, and cognitive dissonance would destroy consciousness before it ever became conscious. Order must prevail over disorder.

If I’m interpreting this correctly, then the answer to this question lies within the answer to the last question. Implicit within what you know, are those things that are consistent with what you know. In much the same way that being aware of the existence of your computer implies a context consistent with where that computer came from. Likewise, an awareness of the “I” may necessitate the existence of the “non-I”. Consciousness may simply be unable to exist without a coherent context for what it is, and where it came from. The two things, consciousness and context, may be inextricably linked. You can’t have one without the other.

I can only reiterate, that there are things of which you’re unaware, that must be true, based upon the things of which you are aware. Beginning simply with the concept of “I am” the mind may spontaneously create everything else. Subsequently, that which you will to be, must always lie in subordination to that which must be.

This may in fact be the reason for everything. Perhaps consciousness cannot conceive of the infinite. It cannot conceive that it has always existed. And it’s this inability to conceive of the impossible that leads to a cognitive dissonance which is reflected in the world around you. The discord in the world may simply be a reflection of the discord which exists in the consciousness that’s creating it.

I still remember some of the experiences of my childhood: If there was some order in the world, I can tell you that it was not what impacted me in the first place. It was not order what I perceived. Nevertheless, my consciousness prevailed, and it was not destroyed by what I could perceive surrounding me.

If you say that the order you are referring to is not that one which should characterize the “non-I”, but the order which supposedly characterizes the “I” and which is at the basis of it, then I could tell you that such an order is not what I noticed in myself either. Still, I am here.

How ordered is Reality? I certainly can perceive certain order; but I am aware that my perception of that order is, at least partially, the result of a heavy intellectual elaboration (not because I produce the order, obviously, but because I need to establish a lot of relations before I can observe it). Besides, it is also quite clear to me that I have to adjust my behavior continuously to obtain the results that I would like to obtain when I act on my surroundings, which means that if there is an order in my interactions with them, it is the product of certain effort and intelligence on my side: it is not a “natural” order.

Even in the remote case that I were a solipsistic individual, I would notice with evidence that I have to follow certain procedures in my interactions with the world if I want to get certain results (I can imagine that my boss increases my salary every month, but if I want to have that money and use it in the benefit of my children, imagining it will not be enough: I will have to be smart and work harder, accepting new responsibilities in my job; and that is a very complex set of procedures). Either solipsist or not solipsist, it would make no difference at all. Either independent or not independent, reality makes the same claims to you than it makes to me.

Do I create the reality? Who cares? Anyway, I have to follow sophisticated and effort demanding techniques to transform it, just the same as what happens to anyone else. And that is what matters to me, EnosJadon.

 

[STT]

No, you do not.

I don’t think so. Abstract objects cease to exist when thinker stop to think about them.

Ah, that’s better. I think you do not agree, because you do not apply it consistently.

That is, I think that it is not OK to “adapt” your position to the question, as you have been doing. Do you agree that it is not OK, or do you think it’s perfectly OK to have a position that is inconsistent, logically self-contradicting, and to pick the propositions from it that happen to be convenient at the moment, while ignoring the others?

As for the specific self-contradiction, let’s look at this:

Ok lets follow.

In that case, since you have agreed with my interpretation of your definition, you have to think that the thinker gets to choose the form of numbers. And if “Little Johnny” finds it convenient that two and two would make five, he should be able to choose forms accordingly.

No, you are missing a part of my definition about abstract objects. Abstract objects are underlying of reality so you can never have 2+2=5. Moreover, Little Johnny can never imagine such a scenario.

Yet you deny this. That is inconsistent.

I hope that the situation is clear now.

“Abstract objects” as you define them only depend on the thinker. If there is an object that also depends on time, you cannot consistently consider it to be an “abstract object”.

You are correct on your observation. Some abstract objects like “Roman Empire existence” are the subject to time since they exist objectively in a period and cease to exist afterward. “Roman Empire” is however time independent.

I will note that you haven’t even asked what the argument was…

Ok, what is the argument?

That’s false, as we’ll see:

Ok, lets follow.

If you were consistent, you would conclude (correctly) that in such case “geometrical shape” has to be at most one type of a “form”.

Is there some reason why you didn’t actually say so earlier? I was asking for something like that.

Anyway, no, it is not obvious, as it is false, and obviously so (unless you’ll admit that “form” is not necessarily “geometrical shape”). We can distinguish a ball made of steel and a ball made of lead, even if they have the same size and shape. Thus objects can also be distinguished by something other than form (as you understand it).

I have never said that form must be geometrical shape. I gave the example of hearing or thought.

OK, maybe you should try to explain my point in your own words… For it looks that you completely miss the point.

You haven’t explain your point yet. You just mentioned that Book is made of characters as a sentence “I am” is made of characters.

Does that even mean anything?

Anyway, I guess it has been established that aleph-zero, imaginary unit or quaternions cannot be imagined.

Imaginary unit is simply square root of -1.

Really? Does “underlying of reality” actually mean anything?

Otherwise I am happy to hear that if i can imagine a unicorn, then the unicorns are “underlying of reality”.

That is a possibility. I don’t see why a unicorn should not exist.

Once again, does that “underlying of reality” actually mean anything?

Yes. Think of reality as it is made of a specific substance. This substance can get different shapes. Think of two identical spheres which are made of this substance. You can see that a thinker can understand one sphere plus one sphere is equal to two spheres. Now subtract spheres and you get 1+1=2 which is a set of abstract objects.

Really? Why do you think so? Do you have any actual evidence to support this claim? For, after all, do you think you would notice if it wasn’t so?

I don’t understand why do you think that I am close minded.

For example…?

How about now?

 

[MPat]

Ok lets follow.

Interestingly, you have not answered the “meta” question, which was probably more important. So, let’s try again.

Do you think that having consistent position is important? Do you try to do your best to keep all your replies consistent with each other? Do you think that a single self-contradiction would mean that your position goes down in flames and has to be replaced?

Or do you think that not asserting something that is an obvious nonsense is important? And that if some things you have said would imply something that is obvious nonsense, you’re to avoid asserting that nonsense?

No, you are missing a part of my definition about abstract objects. Abstract objects are underlying of reality so you can never have 2+2=5. Moreover, Little Johnny can never imagine such a scenario.

Then it is not he that decides what “2” and “5” are (or what their forms are) - they come from somewhere else. And yes, they do come from somewhere else, but that is incompatible with your position.

So, back to the “meta” question…

Some abstract objects like “Roman Empire existence” are the subject to time since they exist objectively in a period and cease to exist afterward. “Roman Empire” is however time independent.

Unfortunately, you haven’t given any indication that there can be “objective abstract object” and “subjective abstract object” until now.

Ok, what is the argument?

Have a look at “Two Dozen Theistic Arguments” by Alvin Plantinga (calvin.edu/academic/philosophy/virtual_library/articles/plantinga_alvin/two_dozen_or_so_theistic_arguments.pdf).

I have never said that form must be geometrical shape. I gave the example of hearing or thought.

Of course you have said so many times. For example:

I am aware of these definitions. I however define form as shape.

You of course can define form as you wish. I am interested in the form as shape.

The difference is that I have added the word “geometrical”. But shape is geometrical by definition. As Wikipedia writes (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape): “A shape is the form of an object or its external boundary, outline, or external surface, as opposed to other properties such as color, texture, or material composition.”.

You haven’t explain your point yet. You just mentioned that Book is made of characters as a sentence “I am” is made of characters.

Oh, but I have explained my point, although you have missed it multiple times. How about you go back through discussion, reread it (at least the relevant parts, easily accessible via “quote” mechanism) and try to put in in your own words?

Imaginary unit is simply square root of -1.

I have to note that you have once again avoided explaining how to “experience” or “imagine” that imaginary unit (or aleph-null, or quaternions for that matter), but did not take back your claims that imply that they have to be “experienced” and “imagined”. And that brings us back to the “meta” question…

That is a possibility. I don’t see why a unicorn should not exist.

It sure is a possibility, but your position implies that it is a certainty. And it is not just that unicorns must exist, but that they “underlie the reality”. I have no idea what that is supposed to mean (and I suspect that it neither do you), but it sure sounds as something stronger than merely existing.

Think of reality as it is made of a specific substance. This substance can get different shapes. Think of two identical spheres which are made of this substance. You can see that a thinker can understand one sphere plus one sphere is equal to two spheres. Now subtract spheres and you get 1+1=2 which is a set of abstract objects.

That has two main problems. First, it is incompatible with this argument you gave:

Think of something which has extension. Now reduce extension gradually. What do you get at the end? Nothing.

So, back to the “meta” question.

Second problem is that such process cannot be done for that same imaginary unit.

I don’t understand why do you think that I am close minded.

So, no explanation why you think otherwise? OK, let’s move on…

I didn’t say you are closed-minded. I said you are not “Seeking the Truth” (that’s a somewhat weaker claim).

If you really were “Seeking the Truth”, you would have an attitude “I have found this position - help me find what is wrong with it.”. I do not see that attitude in this discussion. Therefore, you are not “Seeking the Truth”.

Why do I fail to see that attitude? Because in too many cases you have evaded challenges to your position in a “unsportsmanlike” way.

For example, there are all those cases when you treated a challenge to your position as if was a mention of a random unrelated fact (as the one mentioned in this very post, where I have asked you to go and look for the actual point).

And then there are many instances where your position looks like “motte and bailey doctrine” (see philpapers.org/archive/SHATVO-2.pdf if the term is not clear). For example, “bailey” can be “Objects must have a geometrical shape to exist.” which would conveniently prove all your main claims. And when it is challenged you “retreat to motte”, claiming your position is not about geometric shape, but about something vague that you do not explain. The challenge passes and you “return to bailey”, and keep arguing as if nothing has happened.

Sorry, but that is not how the ones “seeking the truth” argue. That’s closer to how propagandists argue.

How about now?

So, no examples of that “a lot” that we got from this discussion?

 

[STT]

Interestingly, you have not answered the “meta” question, which was probably more important. So, let’s try again.

Do you think that having consistent position is important? Do you try to do your best to keep all your replies consistent with each other? Do you think that a single self-contradiction would mean that your position goes down in flames and has to be replaced?

Yes. Yes. Yes. But where is the inconsistency?

Or do you think that not asserting something that is an obvious nonsense is important? And that if some things you have said would imply something that is obvious nonsense, you’re to avoid asserting that nonsense?

We are not talking about nonsense. I don’t understand what you are trying to say here.

Then it is not he that decides what “2” and “5” are (or what their forms are) - they come from somewhere else. And yes, they do come from somewhere else, but that is incompatible with your position.

Yes, what “2” and “5” are is independent of what he thinks.

So, back to the “meta” question…

Unfortunately, you haven’t given any indication that there can be “objective abstract object” and “subjective abstract object” until now.

So in your opinion what the phrase “Roman Empire existence” is as an abstract object?
My answer is that the phrase is “objective abstract object” if we live in the period which
the system exist otherwise it is “subjective abstract object”.

Have a look at “Two Dozen Theistic Arguments” by Alvin Plantinga (calvin.edu/academic/philosophy/virtual_library/articles/plantinga_alvin/two_dozen_or_so_theistic_arguments.pdf).

I will look at it shortly. I forgot. Why I should read these arguments?

Of course you have said so many times. For example:

The difference is that I have added the word “geometrical”. But shape is geometrical by definition. As Wikipedia writes (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape): “A shape is the form of an object or its external boundary, outline, or external surface, as opposed to other properties such as color, texture, or material composition.”.

I see what is the problem and I am sorry for that. By form I mean that something which has configuration, Like vision, voice, etc.

Oh, but I have explained my point, although you have missed it multiple times. How about you go back through discussion, reread it (at least the relevant parts, easily accessible via “quote” mechanism) and try to put in in your own words?

Do you means this part?

You still are not giving meters, thus we only have bits and characters. And if something can be measured in bits and not in meters, then it has no definite geometrical shape - and all kinds of problems for your philosophy follow.

I have to note that you have once again avoided explaining how to “experience” or “imagine” that imaginary unit (or aleph-null, or quaternions for that matter), but did not take back your claims that imply that they have to be “experienced” and “imagined”. And that brings us back to the “meta” question…

This is explained in the following.

. And it is not just that unicorns must exist, but that they “underlie the reality”. I have no idea what that is supposed to mean (and I suspect that it neither do you), but it sure sounds as something stronger than merely existing.

I am not talking about certainty. A unicorn could exist because we can abstract it. Underlie the reality simply means that there exist a set of abstract objects in any reality, such as “1+1=2”, no matter if you live in this universe or another stranger universe.

That has two main problems. First, it is incompatible with this argument you gave:

That is no really a problem since we are thinking of two beings not two nothings.

So, back to the “meta” question.

Second problem is that such process cannot be done for that same imaginary unit.

We know what subtract means: “2-1=1”. We can write this as “2+(-1)=1” where negative numbers are obtained from a shift in the reference point, zero. We then define square root (-1) to be i.

So, no explanation why you think otherwise? OK, let’s move on…

Ok, I just have a scattered mind. How about that?

So, no examples of that “a lot” that we got from this discussion?

How about now?

[/QUOTE]

 

[MPat]

Ok, I just have a scattered mind. How about that?

I will look at it shortly. I forgot. Why I should read these arguments?

OK, so, you notice that you find it hard to concentrate. Obviously, there are specialists (psychologists?) who might know some ways to concentrate better, but perhaps there is a “workaround” that might help a little for discussions like this… First, take your time. Second, try to avoid discussing many subjects in parallel. Writing such a post should have taken perhaps an hour even with normal concentration. Yet I see you write numerous posts in multiple threads each day. If you also have trouble concentrating, no wonder you overwhelm your ability to concentrate and fail to remember why you are given a link and to notice self-contradictions taking a bit more steps.

Thus I would recommend you to drop out of some discussions for now. For example, I think it should be OK to drop out of this one. Especially given that I already see that the thread hasn’t been in vain:

I see what is the problem and I am sorry for that. By form I mean that something which has configuration, Like vision, voice, etc.

Yes, that’s much closer to the Thomistic understanding of form.

I guess that will be enough for now.