Nothing to something

[quaestio45]

It is not objective in the sense it has no essence.

So there is no inherent nature to certain beings? That such things are nothing but mental constructs without any real world origin?

No, it is not absurd. You were not just in human form so could’t interact with reality as it is.

Well, I’m certain that your justification for such an idea is a well founded and interesting one. Until such, however, I cannot say I’m on board with the idea myself.

Things are divided into two categories, minds which have essence so they exist and mental which is due to mind. Otherwise we are dealing with nothing.

So everything is a mind or a thought? Another very strange idea, to say the least, to which I’m sure you have proper justification for, yet, I do not find myself aligned with.

State of decision is a state of potentiality.

Yes, within a temporal framework. In a atemporal framework, that simply cannot be the case because there cannot be a change in state of being. Therefore, all “decisions” are really just an eternal eminence from said atemporal being.

The universe is either bounded (finite) or not bounded (infinite). If it is bounded it is bounded by something else. Now lets call the universe and what bounds it as a new universe. The new universe is either bounded or not. Etc. Therefore, the universe is infinite.

Interestingly enough, that argument sounds very similar to an argument from contingency. That something is finite, therefore something made it finite; if that thing is itself finite, it must also have an explanation for its finite nature through another prior to it, so on and so forth until you reach something which is ultimately infinite. I don’t see how there can be a deduction on the front that something made cannot be finite because its prior could be finite and thus we lead to infinite regress. I very much see as a possibility that something prior to it is infinite (or, at least, an ultimate infinite at the end of the causal chain). Furthermore, I don’t understand why we would call the thing which makes something finite (even the universe) another universe. I think keeping at saying it is another being is good enough; that be so, the question is whether said being is either contingent or noncontingent.

 

[Gorgias]

But this leaves open the possibility that there’s more than one necessary being.

Ahh, but that’s not the end of the discussion, is it?

The only stipulation Gorgias laid out was that a necessary being isn’t dependent upon anything else for its existence.

Context, @lelinator, context…

@STT was talking about contingent and non-contingent beings. I was addressing his mistakes in the context of his assertions.

I have an argument that states

Every time I see you’ve written this, my blood pressure goes up a little…

The universe is either bounded (finite) or not bounded (infinite). If it is bounded it is bounded by something else. Now lets call the universe and what bounds it as a new universe.

What if it’s just bounded by infinity/eternity, and not some other entity?

 

[STT]

So there is no inherent nature to certain beings? That such things are nothing but mental constructs without any real world origin?

Any mental phenomena is due to existence of mind.

Well, I’m certain that your justification for such an idea is a well founded and interesting one. Until such, however, I cannot say I’m on board with the idea myself.

Yes, I have justification for that. I am discussing it in another thread entitled “free-agent is not contingent”.

So everything is a mind or a thought? Another very strange idea, to say the least, to which I’m sure you have proper justification for, yet, I do not find myself aligned with.

I said mental. Thoughts are a category of mental.

Yes, within a temporal framework. In a atemporal framework, that simply cannot be the case because there cannot be a change in state of being. Therefore, all “decisions” are really just an eternal eminence from said atemporal being.

Well, are you discussing a free decision in which the decision has to be made or you are discussing a decided case?

 

[STT]

What if it’s just bounded by infinity/eternity, and not some other entity?

The case is proved if the universe is bounded by infinity since I call the infinity and the universe as a new universe. Eternity is different from infinity. You haven’t yet answer my question about what eternity is so until then.

 

[Gorgias]

The case is proved if the universe is bounded by infinity since I call the infinity and the universe as a new universe.

‘Infinity’ isn’t a “new universe”.

 

[STT]

Infinity’ isn’t a “new universe”.

It obviously is. The place that we are living within.

 

[quaestio45]

Any mental phenomena is due to existence of mind.

Yes, that may certainly be the case. The question of how the idea of essence can be reduced to mental phenomena, however, is still needing of explanation in my estimate.

Yes, I have justification for that. I am discussing it in another thread entitled “free-agent is not contingent”.

Is that so? Well it seems as if I have more reason to closely examine the interesting dialog there with great enthusiasm.

Well, are you discussing a free decision in which the decision has to be made or you are discussing a decided case?

I’d say a decieded case.

 

[STT]

Yes, that may certainly be the case. The question of how the idea of essence can be reduced to mental phenomena, however, is still needing of explanation in my estimate.

Are you talking about existence instead of essence?

Is that so? Well it seems as if I have more reason to closely examine the interesting dialog there with great enthusiasm.

Your criticisms are welcome.

I’d say a decieded case.

So we are on the same page.

 

[quaestio45]

Are you talking about existence instead of essence?

Yes, that is what I meant to say. My mistake.

 

[Gorgias]

It obviously is. The place that we are living within.

You’re living in the universe, not in some sort of boundary “new universe”…

 

[STT]

You’re living in the universe, not in some sort of boundary “new universe”…

Others are living in other parts.

 

[STT]

Yes, that is what I meant to say. My mistake.

Oh sorry, I missed to answer your post. There are two sort of things: Something (that exists and its existence is due to the fact that it is has an essence) or nothing.

 

[quaestio45]

There are two sort of things: Something (that exists and its existence is due to the fact that it is has an essence) or nothing.

I must ask you what you mean by “existence due to the fact that it has an essence”. By that do you mean that the essence explains why said something exists at all, or that it explains the manner of said somethings existence, or that it explains all of its existence (from the fact it exists to the manner of its existence)?

 

[STT]

I must ask you what you mean by “existence due to the fact that it has an essence”. By that do you mean that the essence explains why said something exists at all, or that it explains the manner of said somethings existence, or that it explains all of its existence (from the fact it exists to the manner of its existence)?

I mean the bold part. Essence makes a thing what it is.

 

[quaestio45]

you mean that the essence explains why said something exists at all

I mean the bold part. Essence makes a thing what it is.

Okay, I see. So essence explains existence in so far as something exists, but not in any other regards such as the state of said existence, correct? Fair enough; at this point I think it would be appropriate that I ask why it is that the essence of a thing does not fully explains the existence of said thing and only stops at the fact that it exists. Is it because of some externality, or does the essence itself bring an explanation?

 

[STT]

Okay, I see. So essence explains existence in so far as something exists, but not in any other regards such as the state of said existence, correct? Fair enough; at this point I think it would be appropriate that I ask why it is that the essence of a thing does not fully explains the existence of said thing and only stops at the fact that it exists.

The essence of a thing does fully explain the existence too. A thing exists because it has an essence.

Is it because of some externality, or does the essence itself bring an explanation?

Essence itself bring an explanation.

 

[quaestio45]

quaestio45:

Okay, I see. So essence explains existence in so far as something exists, but not in any other regards such as the state of said existence, correct? Fair enough; at this point I think it would be appropriate that I ask why it is that the essence of a thing does not fully explains the existence of said thing and only stops at the fact that it exists.

The essence of a thing does fully explain the existence too. A thing exists because it has an essence.

Is it because of some externality, or does the essence itself bring an explanation?

Essence itself bring an explanation.

So the essence indeed fully explains the existence of things (insofar as they exist at all, and the state of their existence), yes? But if essence were to fully explain our existence, and our existence is something which can never carry itself beyond the fullness of essence based explanation, would that not imply that we are static, immutable beings? That is to say, nothing can cause us to be different in any manner? If that’s so, wouldn’t it be that all things fall into something in close alignment to Zeno’s vision of the world (that nothing changes at all, that all things are static, and that any change we perceive is an illusion)?

 

[STT]

So the essence indeed fully explains the existence of things (insofar as they exist at all, and the state of their existence), yes? But if essence were to fully explain our existence, and our existence is something which can never carry itself beyond the fullness of essence based explanation, would that not imply that we are static, immutable beings? That is to say, nothing can cause us to be different in any manner? If that’s so, wouldn’t it be that all things fall into something in close alignment to Zeno’s vision of the world (that nothing changes at all, that all things are static, and that any change we perceive is an illusion)?

You, your essence, does not change. Your thoughts, feelings, etc. are subject to change.

 

[quaestio45]

You, your essence, does not change. Your thoughts, feelings, etc. are subject to change.

Ah, okay! I think I’m tracking you now. So we do have accidents, yes? Things which are not necessarily a carry down of our essence, correct? In the same way that our essence of man does not necessarily carry down a species of the man genus such as “cook” or “artist”, although such things are not in contradiction to the essence of man. That be so, what causes such accidents to arise? If our essence does allow for thoughts, feelings, and all such things as that, why is it that we go from one though or feeling to another? Because of an externality, perhaps?

 

[STT]

Ah, okay! I think I’m tracking you now. So we do have accidents, yes? Things which are not necessarily a carry down of our essence, correct? In the same way that our essence of man does not necessarily carry down a species of the man genus such as “cook” or “artist”, although such things are not in contradiction to the essence of man. That be so, what causes such accidents to arise?

Yes. You got me.

If our essence does allow for thoughts, feelings, and all such things as that, why is it that we go from one though or feeling to another? Because of an externality, perhaps?

Because, our experiences, knowledge, etc. (what you call externality) derive us yet we have control over them.