Criteria of 'Existence'

[inocente]

inocente;12285304:

I think the main reason for performing a ritual countdown first is that the lifters won’t be successful unless they synchronize precisely, since otherwise it’s too much weight for one person to lift. The lifters may also need to be a bit pumped-up to have the necessary confidence.

What you do in the quote above is use some physio/psychological words to make up an explanation that satisfies your needs and keeps your vision of reality intact.

Which do you think are the “physio/psychological words”?

I gave a reasoned argument for why I think the trick didn’t work that time. I think your accusation is uncharitable. I could say of the rest of your post that you used some religious words to make up an explanation that satisfies your needs and keeps your vision of reality intact. So you now know I can play those games too. But perhaps we could avoid any further personal comments and stick to the subject.

Your remarks about God, miracles, and the interesting movie were not relevant to the poster’s original claim (#79) that “evil spirits have the power to interfere with this power [gravity] by God’s permission.”

There are all kinds of simple experiments which would disprove that claim. Occam’s razor still applies.

 

[inocente]

How did amino acids suddenly become living organisms?

They didn’t. Spontaneous generation was an Aristotelian notion “So with animals, some spring from parent animals according to their kind, whilst others grow spontaneously and not from kindred stock; and of these instances of spontaneous generation some come from putrefying earth or vegetable matter, as is the case with a number of insects, while others are spontaneously generated in the inside of animals out of the secretions of their several organs”.

The definition of life is quite complicated. In larger organisms it involves metabolism, growing and reproducing, responding to stimuli, signalling, adaptation, etc. It’s highly unlikely these all came about together in small organisms, but it’s not a statistical problem for them to come about in a sequence given the vast number of molecules and the long period of time.

For all we know the universe could be teeming with life, although perhaps intelligent life is much less likely. But we don’t know, and the problem with saying Goddidit (via ID or whatever else) is it’s god-of-the-gaps.

Imho much better to find God in what we do know than in what we don’t.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The definition of life is quite complicated. In larger organisms it involves metabolism, growing and reproducing, responding to stimuli, signalling, adaptation, etc. It’s highly unlikely these all came about together in small organisms, but it’s not a statistical problem for them to come about in a sequence given the vast number of molecules and the long period of time.

What vast number of molecules and long period of time are you talking about? Were you there to observe. It’s all speculation for you, isn’t it? Yet you wrap it up as science and decorate it with the bow of your magical insight.

You know you say is not science. It is magic. God’s magic is bigger and better than yours.

If you don’t understand the principle of irreducible complexity, you’re not ready for this discussion.

Life had to be ready for many functions all at once. There is not possibility that evolution produced life because evolution had not yet begun and is defined as the process of new life emerging from older life.

So all you have to go on is the vague calculation that if you have enough time and enough molecules, somehow this time and all these molecules will suddenly get assembled at once, in a split second, to produce life. If you say they got assembled by accident, that is a miraculous roll of the dice. I agree. The first life form was a miracle …

and GODDIDIT!

There was not some roll of the dice that God had no part in.

As a Baptist, do you disagree that God created the universe with the intent of producing life?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

You are acting much like the guy who feels smug after proposing that God accounts for objects falling back to Earth, as if this clarifies anything.

I don’t reply to ad hominems, and I will be ignoring all the rest of your posts.

Have a great day!

 

[Oreoracle]

I don’t reply to ad hominems, and I will be ignoring all the rest of your posts.

Have a great day!

It was becoming a bit dull watching you squirm anyway. I thought I’d be kind and give you an excuse to leave the discussion with dignity. So we can all pretend Oreoracle was just a big meany-head and that’s why the conversation’s over.

 

[Aloysium]

Which do you think are the “physio/psychological words”?

I gave a reasoned argument for why I think the trick didn’t work that time. I think your accusation is uncharitable. I could say of the rest of your post that you used some religious words to make up an explanation that satisfies your needs and keeps your vision of reality intact. So you now know I can play those games too. But perhaps we could avoid any further personal comments and stick to the subject.

Your remarks about God, miracles, and the interesting movie were not relevant to the poster’s original claim (#79) that “evil spirits have the power to interfere with this power [gravity] by God’s permission.”

There are all kinds of simple experiments which would disprove that claim. Occam’s razor still applies.

This is an open forum; I am not speaking solely to you.
I apologize to you and the original poster for using your statements to formulate some ideas.
I will point out that you are in good company; here we do the same to the saints and to God Himself, addressing them always in the third person.

The original poster was describing an extraordinary situation wherein he found himself in the realm of the spiritual.
Your response addressed what are merely the circumstantial features of the physical reality in which it happened.
Your explanation was beside the point I understand the poster was making.

My experience was that gravity had no effect on me, gravity is a physical law, ordained by God, and** evil spirits have the power to interfere with this power by God’s permission**, maybe so that I can witness to this truth. I was asked what was the reason for the phenomenon. At that time all I could think about was all the paranormal activity going one. ESP, fortune telling, quija board, clairvoyance, telekenisis, and astro-projection etc. It’s Satan’s way of deceiving people into thinking they have undiscovered powers, devinizing man’s capabilities, false gods. All of this is an offense against religion, and the First commandment.

We have a sense of our presence in the world that includes size and weight.
It is from these basic experiences that emerge from our relationship with the world that we go on to develop more abstract notions such as “gravity”.
The person speaking in this quote is not a physicist, but is describing what happened to him and how he understood it.
You would have to be there to actually appreciate the event.

Your attempt to see some truth outside the mystery, to destroy it by explaining it away in terms of the physical missed the truth contained in the report.
There was something unusual happening, shaking the “cognitive” structures that shape experiential reality and thereby maintain our contact with the world.
The order of the universe is good and has been established by God; when we try to appropriate what is God’s we fall into sin and into great peril.

What some people do when things get topsy turvy, is to turn on the science perspective - matter, gravity, etc.
How solid, how real, it all becomes. There is nothing to worry about. All the inconsistencies, all the scary stuff, the abyss itself magically disappear.
Is this reason or a delusion that eliminates meaning, morality, the person himself?
While all this may help stop one’s mind from perseverating on nonsense, it is of no comfort when faced with intractable pain, bone-crushing loneliness or unspeakable shame.
At that point it provides some hope, some solace, albeit false, that in death, physically a return to inert, unfeeling matter, we can achieve peace by getting away from it all - the antithesis of our ultimate destiny, with its potential for joy or horror.

There is so much more to say. I hope this makes some sense.

BTW - the tone of my response was in keeping with your reply to the other poster, which began:

Don’t take your bat home . . .

It’s not much of an apology to someone who feels slighted.
I tried giving up being uncharitable for Lent - no one noticed.

 

[yppop]

I think you overplayed your hand here. The statement was “This is like saying that the theory of plate tectonics makes no predictions because we can’t always tell when plates will shift. It predicts that earthquakes will occur when the plates shift.”

The prediction is not when an earthquake will occur, or when plates will shift, but that plates shift and are accompanied by earthquakes. The theory makes other predictions too, relating to geology and magnetism.

Doesn’t postdiction have more in common with the benefits of hindsight and occult practices? Evolution makes a number of predictions which have been routinely tested over the last 150 years, but, and this is the main reason for this post, a gentle reminder to you and Oreoracle of the temporary ban on discussion of evolution.

I don’t believe you understood what I was pointing out. Maybe the following will clear up what I am alluding to when I write that the Theory of Evolution does not predict; it postdicts.

Science arrives in the text books by more than one methodology; the most accepted way is the so called scientific method: Observation; hypothesis; prediction; and verification by test or experiment. Another way a hypothesis can become science is: as the most plausible explanation of the known facts. With the scientific method, the predictions must be testable. With the plausibility method, no testing is required. The scientific method generates predictive science; the plausibility approach generates postdictive (or retrodictive) science.

From Wikipedia
In scientific method, the terms retrodiction or** postdiction*** are used in several senses.

A retrodiction occurs when already gathered data is accounted for by a later theoretical advance in a more convincing fashion. The advantage of a retrodiction over a prediction is that the already gathered data is more likely to be free of experimenter bias.

Another use [of postdiction] refers to a process by which one attempts to test a theory whose predictions are too long-term to be tested by waiting for a future event to occur. Instead, one speculates about uncertain events in the more distant past, and applies the theory to consider how it would have predicted a known event in the less distant past. This is useful in, for example, the fields of archaeology, climatology, evolutionary biology, financial analysis, forensic science, and cosmology*.

Let me give another example of the difference between predictions and postdictions. If the Cosmic Background Radiation was discovered before it was predicted; the CBR would be merely additional evidence along with the red shift of distant galaxies. Instead the CBR was discovered after it was predicted and hence was considered as verification. Verification is stronger than postdictive evidence in determining the transition from hypothesis to theory.

The fusion of the human chromosome might be postdictive evidence of evolution, but it certainly wasn’t predicted.

A prediction is a foretelling of the future and when it is part of the scientific method it must be associated with the capability of be tested. Microevolution is postdictive science; it is the most plausible explanation of the known facts. It is not predictive.
Yppop

 

[inocente]

What vast number of molecules and long period of time are you talking about? Were you there to observe. It’s all speculation for you, isn’t it? Yet you wrap it up as science and decorate it with the bow of your magical insight.

The Earth contains a vast number of molecules and is 4.5 billions of years old. Are you saying one or both of those facts are speculative?

*You know you say is not science. It is magic. God’s magic is bigger and better than yours.

If you don’t understand the principle of irreducible complexity, you’re not ready for this discussion. *

Not sure what you meant by the first sentence, but would strongly disagree that God is magic, new age or otherwise.

Behe should rename his “principle” irreducible stupidity . He commits the informal fallacy known as appeal to ignorance and we all remember him being laughed out of court in Kitzmiller v. Dover. That will be my last word on the bygone American political movement of ID, also known as pseudoscience. It is so last-century.

Life had to be ready for many functions all at once.

How could you possible know that? Please give your reasoning.

As a Baptist, do you disagree that God created the universe with the intent of producing life?

As a Baptist, I note that you didn’t answer my questions from post #140 and that you’ve switched into No True Scotsman mode, and wonder if those two things are connected. Whatever, I asked my questions first, so it’s only fair you answer them before I answer yours, otherwise you might get thought of as ducking and diving, perish the thought. For your convenience, here are my questions again:

Which particular philosophy of science involving axioms do you favor? Please be specific.

Please name any academy or philosophy of science which states that non-falsifiable remarks can be considered as scientific theories.

You didn’t respond [for the third time now] to me asking whether you think the reasoning is wrong, and if so how, in the following: “Newton was wrong. The solar system resulted from collisions of debris gradually producing planets orbiting in one plane in one direction, which hoovered up pretty much everything else.”.

Thank you kindly. :thankyou:

 

[inocente]

This is an open forum; I am not speaking solely to you.
I apologize to you and the original poster for using your statements to formulate some ideas.

That’s OK, but thanks.

The original poster was describing an extraordinary situation wherein he found himself in the realm of the spiritual.
Your response addressed what are merely the circumstantial features of the physical reality in which it happened.
Your explanation was beside the point I understand the poster was making.

To me, sitting in the Sagrada Familia is spiritual, standing at the south rim of the Grand Canyon is spiritual, holding a new-born baby is spiritual, but not a common illusion.

*We have a sense of our presence in the world that includes size and weight.
It is from these basic experiences that emerge from our relationship with the world that we go on to develop more abstract notions such as “gravity”.
The person speaking in this quote is not a physicist, but is describing what happened to him and how he understood it.
You would have to be there to actually appreciate the event.

Your attempt to see some truth outside the mystery, to destroy it by explaining it away in terms of the physical missed the truth contained in the report.
There was something unusual happening, shaking the “cognitive” structures that shape experiential reality and thereby maintain our contact with the world.
The order of the universe is good and has been established by God; when we try to appropriate what is God’s we fall into sin and into great peril.

What some people do when things get topsy turvy, is to turn on the science perspective - matter, gravity, etc.
How solid, how real, it all becomes. There is nothing to worry about. All the inconsistencies, all the scary stuff, the abyss itself magically disappear.
Is this reason or a delusion that eliminates meaning, morality, the person himself?
While all this may help stop one’s mind from perseverating on nonsense, it is of no comfort when faced with intractable pain, bone-crushing loneliness or unspeakable shame.
At that point it provides some hope, some solace, albeit false, that in death, physically a return to inert, unfeeling matter, we can achieve peace by getting away from it all - the antithesis of our ultimate destiny, with its potential for joy or horror.

There is so much more to say. I hope this makes some sense.*

It makes sense to me, and you make an excellent point, but I think I would disagree on moral grounds.

If doctors had never tried to understand how diseases spread, because by doing so they would dispel a mystery, then we would still imagine diseases are due to evil spirits and many would continue to die unnecessarily. There is a big survival advantage in getting to the facts of matters.

The moral distinction is between wanting more knowledge or wanting more ignorance. I’d say we should think very carefully before arguing for the latter, since even though knowledge can be used for good or for evil, we do at least have the choice, whereas with ignorance we have none.

I’d argue there are plenty enough real mysteries without us having to be frightened of explaining some or needing to manufacture more.

Hopefully that makes sense, even though you may disagree.

 

[inocente]

I don’t believe you understood what I was pointing out. Maybe the following will clear up what I am alluding to when I write that the Theory of Evolution does not predict; it postdicts.

Science arrives in the text books by more than one methodology; the most accepted way is the so called scientific method: Observation; hypothesis; prediction; and verification by test or experiment. Another way a hypothesis can become science is: as the most plausible explanation of the known facts. With the scientific method, the predictions must be testable. With the plausibility method, no testing is required. The scientific method generates predictive science; the plausibility approach generates postdictive (or retrodictive) science.

From Wikipedia
In scientific method, the terms retrodiction or** postdiction*** are used in several senses.

A retrodiction occurs when already gathered data is accounted for by a later theoretical advance in a more convincing fashion. The advantage of a retrodiction over a prediction is that the already gathered data is more likely to be free of experimenter bias.

Another use [of postdiction] refers to a process by which one attempts to test a theory whose predictions are too long-term to be tested by waiting for a future event to occur. Instead, one speculates about uncertain events in the more distant past, and applies the theory to consider how it would have predicted a known event in the less distant past. This is useful in, for example, the fields of archaeology, climatology, evolutionary biology,* financial analysis, forensic science, and cosmology.

Let me give another example of the difference between predictions and postdictions. If the Cosmic Background Radiation was discovered before it was predicted; the CBR would be merely additional evidence along with the red shift of distant galaxies. Instead the CBR was discovered after it was predicted and hence was considered as verification. Verification is stronger than postdictive evidence in determining the transition from hypothesis to theory.

The fusion of the human chromosome might be postdictive evidence of evolution, but it certainly wasn’t predicted.

A prediction is a foretelling of the future and when it is part of the scientific method it must be associated with the capability of be tested. Microevolution is postdictive science; it is the most plausible explanation of the known facts. It is not predictive.
Yppop

OK, thanks for the fulsome reply. I’m much happier with retrodiction as it doesn’t have the negative hindsight connotations of postdiction. For example, wiktionary has:

postdiction - The construction of past conditions by relying on the present.

retrodiction - A form of “prediction” that deals with the past rather than the future, sometimes useful in testing theories whose actual predictions are too long-term to be of immediate use.

I’d use retrodiction as defined there, in the sense of a type of prediction, as in “if my theory is true then no X will ever be found which it can’t explain”.

I believe that’s true where X is “movement of the upper mantle” (plate tectonics) or X is “biological specimen” (a certain other theory which out of respect for the ban we won’t mention again).

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Just back from retreat. Apologies for the delay.

OK- let’s consider it’s everyday evidence. Imagine a world where everything had the same color- the precise same shade of blue. Now, if, in that world, I tried to define ‘blue’ by demonstration, I could not point to any particular thing, more meaningfully then any other, and say, “That is blue”. Nor could I define it in helpful words.

So, because we live in an world where ‘everything’ exists, it seems we are in a similar situation to those folks in the world in which everything is the same shade of blue. In effect, the word ‘blue’ would be a useless word to them, since it would be applicable to everything. So it seems with ‘existent’. Since the set of ‘existent things’ includes everything, it seems like a set with no criteria…

Or am I missing something?

In my opinion you are missing something.

In the hypothetical world you propose, there would be no color. There would be no contrast, no other hues against which to differentiate any color at all. It would be as good as all grey. Color would not be a discernible item, and therefore not a definable item.

Yet even in the world you propose there is a contrast to existence, non-existence. My little puppy didn’t exist. Then he came into existence. If he tragically died, he would no longer exist. Things come into being and pass away all the time. And, based on this, as I said, we constantly have recourse in everyday language to the judgment by the mind that some things are in reality or are no longer or just plain do not exist.

The set of existent things includes every existent thing, not everything. It doesn’t include: all the dogs our family had growing up (the set of things that did exist, but no longer do); or centaurs (things that do not exist); or things that have not yet come into being.

IMO the criteria for things that have come into being but not yet passed away are covered in the two I gave.

 

[Oreoracle]

I think Nihilist’s point is that you can’t observe something and add any additional information by saying that it exists. The fact that it is existent is implicit in the fact that there is something to observe.

The way that logicians get around that is by treating existence as an operator rather than as a predicate (a predicate is basically the name of a set). I understand that you have been working with some logic and algebra recently, Nihilist, so hopefully you see the distinction I am suggesting. The set of existent things would be the set of all elements, which isn’t particularly helpful.

So instead of thinking about existence as a predicate or set, just think of it as a way of asserting membership within a particular set. In algebra, for instance, we say that for any integer x there exists an integer y such that x+y=0. The existential operator is there only to assert y’s membership in the set of integers (not in the set of all elements).

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

I think Nihilist’s point is that you can’t observe something and add any additional information by saying that it exists. The fact that it is existent is implicit in the fact that there is something to observe.

The way that logicians get around that is by treating existence as an operator rather than as a predicate (a predicate is basically the name of a set). I understand that you have been working with some logic and algebra recently, Nihilist, so hopefully you see the distinction I am suggesting. The set of existent things would be the set of all elements, which isn’t particularly helpful.

So instead of thinking about existence as a predicate or set, just think of it as a way of asserting membership within a particular set. In algebra, for instance, we say that for any integer x there exists an integer y such that x+y=0. The existential operator is there only to assert y’s membership in the set of integers (not in the set of all elements).

I would offer a few points.

(1) Metaphysically existence is an act.

(2) In a judgment, a declarative sentence that can be true or false, “is” sometimes functions as a copula for a predicate adjective or predicate nominative. The dog is large. That is a groundhog. Socrates is a man. But even in these cases where one makes a judgment of attribution, such judgments are meant to tell how a certain thing actually is. They are not just including the subjects in a class.

(3) “Is” can also be a judgment of existence. As Etienne Gilson notes, “The proposition Socrates is does not mean that Socrates is Socrates. Neither does it point out Socrates; what it points out is the fact that Socrates is.” (Being and Some Philosophers, p. 194)

(4) Regarding your opening two sentences.
(a) Your opening sentence is true in a way for physical objects. “Observation” is trained perception. Perception is sensory and intellectual, and linguistically formed. It is not merely raw sense data impressed upon sense organs. Within perception/observation it is the intellect that makes the judgment of existence. So if you are saying that reporting an observation of a physical object includes the judgment of its existence by the intellect, I agree.

But then it does include the judgment of existence by the intellect in regard to something, and such involves the two criteria I offered earlier to Nihilist.

(b) But, as I mentioned to Nihilist, I reject limiting existence/reality/being to physical objects until proven that one should do so. This is so because in the face of an over 2500 yr theistic tradition in the West it is arbitrary to do so without proving that one should. The burden of proof is on the historically newer claim. In the West physicalism/materialism is by far the newer claim.

“Existence” can apply beyond the level of sense perception of physical objects. E.g., We can define different types of sentences. “A question is . . .” Or state “Justice is a virtue.” Or “AAA-1 is a valid syllogism.” Ask “Does causality exist?” Or “Is the principle of sufficient reason self-evident?” “Does God exist?”

 

[ynotzap]

I think Nihilist’s point is that you can’t observe something and add any additional information by saying that it exists. The fact that it is existent is implicit in the fact that there is something to observe.

This observation not only can be observed by sensing its existence, but by being understood which is understood intellectually- spiritual vision.

A question was asked by whom I assumed was a college student:: Where did God come from? and If God can exist without being caused, why can’t matter? Postulating God adds complexity to the universe but solves no new mysteries, the philosophical principle of Occam’s razor dispenses with un-necessary complexity in choosing between competing theories.

I respond: If God was caused then He is the effect of a greater cause, and couldn’t be God in the first place. If God was not caused and He exists then Existence must be His nature- “I Am Who Am”

Matter has potency ( a capacity to become) and it can not become all that it can become at one time, yet it remains matter, it’s state of existence changes. I f existence was it’s nature it would be all that it could become at one time and not subject to time and change. All that it could become is not in Act, but only in potency.

Matter is in constant motion, it is dynamic, it does not explain itself, and is moved by another. God is Pure Being, Pure Act, He does not have a capacity to be, or become, He is!! When we speak of God we must necessarily speak of Him in an existential way, in other words "that He is, and not what He is.

Matter is sustained by God who is infinite so it accidentally appears infinite when actually it is essentially finite.

I like the way people refer to Occam’s razor to avoid facing the real problems, it really a useful rational tool, when rationalizing.

 

[Nihilist]

Oreoracle;12296449:

I think Nihilist’s point is that you can’t observe something and add any additional information by saying that it exists. The fact that it is existent is implicit in the fact that there is something to observe.

This observation not only can be observed by sensing its existence, but by being understood which is understood intellectually- spiritual vision.

A question was asked by whom I assumed was a college student:: Where did God come from? and If God can exist without being caused, why can’t matter? Postulating God adds complexity to the universe but solves no new mysteries, the philosophical principle of Occam’s razor dispenses with un-necessary complexity in choosing between competing theories.

I respond: If God was caused then He is the effect of a greater cause, and couldn’t be God in the first place. If God was not caused and He exists then Existence must be His nature- “I Am Who Am”

Matter has potency ( a capacity to become) and it can not become all that it can become at one time, yet it remains matter, it’s state of existence changes. I f existence was it’s nature it would be all that it could become at one time and not subject to time and change. All that it could become is not in Act, but only in potency.

Matter is in constant motion, it is dynamic, it does not explain itself, and is moved by another. God is Pure Being, Pure Act, He does not have a capacity to be, or become, He is!! When we speak of God we must necessarily speak of Him in an existential way, in other words "that He is, and not what He is.

Matter is sustained by God who is infinite so it accidentally appears infinite when actually it is essentially finite.

I like the way people refer to Occam’s razor to avoid facing the real problems, it really a useful rational tool, when rationalizing.

I agree. If matter does not explain itself- there must be SOMETHING that does- which is God.

I think Spinoza saw this is in saying there is some “Substance” (some undefined entity- like matter without properties [although that not really conceivable]) which necessarily exists, which is basically God. There must be something which exists in a non-contingent way- this something is necessarily invisble, since all visible forms are mutabile and contingent. Yet, does this prove ‘God’ in the sense of a personal being? Unfortunately, no, it seems.

 

[ynotzap]

ynotzap;12296833:

I agree. If matter does not explain itself- there must be SOMETHING that does- which is God.

I think Spinoza saw this is in saying there is some “Substance” (some undefined entity- like matter without properties [although that not really conceivable]) which necessarily exists, which is basically God. There must be something which exists in a non-contingent way- this something is necessarily invisble, since all visible forms are mutabile and contingent. Yet, does this prove ‘God’ in the sense of a personal being? Unfortunately, no, it seems.

That’s the beauty of our faith, it reveals this God, it identifies Him in Jesus Christ, the I Am. Who Am. Reason and Faith are synthesized by St. Thomas. God then becomes personal and we can have a personal relationship with Him, Deo Gratias! Right reason leads you to the doorstep, Faith in Jesus carries you over the threshold.