The ontological foundation of existence and the North Pole

[cpayne]

That would mean that you and I are to accept as accurate everything we are told. Certainly neither you nor I do that. I could tell you that you owe me $1,200.00. Surely I shouldn’t expect to receive a check in the mail.

So I’m going to ask you how I should go about determining whether I’m pretending that you have two children and whether there are angels. Remember, I only wish to know whether these things are real independent of my own thoughts.

So how would I do that?

The reason I’m asking about pretending is because our brains have these thingies called mirror neurons. With mirror neurons, the ability to pretend is literally hardwired into our brains. That’s pretty intriguing. The question is why this would be so. My take is that the ability to pretend makes for a stronger brain. A stronger brain is like a stronger wall. It can still be misused but it’s still stronger, and as such better prepared to survive. And so we pretend and fantasize because it makes our brains stronger.

But too much pretending would actually weaken the brain. It can even kill it, if it pretends that it can fly off a cliff or stop a locomotive by holding out a hand. So there’s this balancing act enforced by natural selection.

So how about an answer? Pretty please?

Okay, but then I have to go to a class. Pesky job.

No, I won’t send you the check, but that’s because I have no reason to believe I owe you money; in fact, I have reasons to believe I don’t. But as far as believing what I’m told, most of the time I do. If someone comes up to me and says, “Hi; my name is Jeff. What’s yours?”, I don’t answer, “Prove to me that your name is Jeff; then maybe I’ll tell you my name.” We basically tend to trust what we are told.

What about more controversial claims, such as whether or not there are angels or whether or not there is a God and so on? For those sorts of claims, I would tend to want a conglomeration of different types of evidences. I would want these claims to be inferable logically; at the least, they shouldn’t violate logic. I would want some sorts of historical evidences for the sources of these claims. If I could have personal experience of or trust in the one making the claims, that would help.

This last one is a big one for me. Jesus told a parable about a man who found a treasure in the field, so he bought the field to get the treasure. I’m sort of in that position. I find that my relationship with God through Christ (the treasure) is so meaningful and life-changing, I’m willing to buy other stuff (the field) that goes along with it. For example, apparently Jesus believed in angels. If He did, so do I. I want the treasure, so I take the field.

 

[JDaniel]

Could I bother you to chew that a tad finer? Are you telling me that you know there are angels?

We can’t “know” directly, but, we can know from our belief in someone who we know cannot deceive. From that same compilation of books - the Bible - we are told about angels. Again, that set of writings dating back some 4,000 or more years, foretelling Christ, with precision, written by hundreds of different people, whose lives never interacted (due to time and whereabouts differences) revealed angels to us. Either God told us the truth, through his prophets and reporters, or he’s the biggest huckster of all time.

So, since I know that I am being told by Truth itself, I know there are angels.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

I understand all that, though perhaps not as well as you and Spock, and I think that it’s appropriate to diverge somewhat.

Regarding Spocks link and your knowing that angels are real, the question is whether there exists a methodology we can apply to test whether the farmer’s knowing Daisy is in the field or your knowing there are angels is in fact accurate. Does this knowledge reflect a condition outside of your own thoughts? Is Daisy really in the field? Are there really angels?

So it seems appropriate to ask how you determine that your brain isn’t simply pretending that angels are real. How do you determine that?

There is a way, we’ll call it the lazy man’s approach: the farmer could order his dairyman to go out into the field, over to where he thinks Daisy is, and verify that it is her. But then, he’d have to trust that his dairyman is a reputable man. If his dairyman has always been honest before, the farmer is justified in his conclusion.

jd

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

So you wish to use science to invalidate atheism. Just like Eucharisted above who said that “science” teaches that the universe comes from something that is “infinte and inconceivable”?

If you wish to do that, you should use real science, not some incorrect representation of what science actually says. For the record, science does NOT say that the BB is the beginning of the universe, no matter how many times you (and others) try to say it. It merely says that the current, observed form of the universe - if “rewound” in time - seems to have emanated from a singularity.

That sounds like the earlier sort of Stoicism, except that the “rewinding” takes the place of the Stoics’ cosmic bonfire (I know that’s not the right phrase, but what it is escapes me for now ).​

The nature of the singularity is unknown. The laws of nature within the singularity are unknown. We can say NOTHING about the singularity, except that it is unknown, as of yet. Let me say again: science says nothing about the singularity itself.

Poor, old second law. It has been misrepresented too many times. The second law is a statistical or stochastic law, which says nothing about the universe.

It only says that in a closed, finite system the distribution of energy tends to get into an equilibrium. It says nothing about local fluctuation of entropy. It is almost funny, that theists try to “prove” God’s existence based upon the “local violation” of entropy (the emergence of life), and then try to “prove” God’s existence based upon the “normal” behavior of a closed, finite system.

It reminds me of the usage of miracles. Theists say: “look, a miracle! Surely that is the sign of God’s existence!”. Then they point at something completely normal, and say: “look, NO miracle! Surely that is the sign of God’s existence!”. It will not fly.

If you wish to employ science, please do not misrepresent what science says.

Eternal? As in meaning: “lasted infinitely into the past?”. That is another bogus assumption. It would necessitate the existence of an “absolute” time, independent from the physical universe. That view was held by the Newtonian concept of a “clockwork” universe, which resides in an absolute space, with an absolute time. That view is obsolete.

One more time, please use science, but some bogus misrepresentation of it.

Not “may” never know it, it is **impossible **to know by definition. And what use is such an answer?

No one said that the electron must be visible to the naked eye. Its properties can be predicted, the predictions can be verified. That method does not apply to the non-physical entity you posit.

FWIW, eternity is conceived of as non-temporal - see Boethius, Consolation of Philosophy ​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I had edited my post so as not to get bogged down about gods. I wanted it to be more generic. I changed it to angels obviously after you’d prepared your reply.

So how do we test for angels?

Doesn’t polytheism deserve a place ?​

 

[Detales]

If you want to admit polytheism, why not admit Advaita? It is the oldest, most consistent and utterly simplest of them all. It puts all ot these ontological and episotomlogical arguments on a far different and far more appropriate field. It re-illuminates christianism with a practical and useful light, and by Occam’s razor is able to resolve philosophical differences between many systems. Yet it appears to be the least understood and most studiously avoided position of any. Very curious.

 

[crowonsnow]

Okay, but then I have to go to a class. Pesky job.

No, I won’t send you the check, but that’s because I have no reason to believe I owe you money; in fact, I have reasons to believe I don’t. But as far as believing what I’m told, most of the time I do. If someone comes up to me and says, “Hi; my name is Jeff. What’s yours?”, I don’t answer, “Prove to me that your name is Jeff; then maybe I’ll tell you my name.” We basically tend to trust what we are told.

What about more controversial claims, such as whether or not there are angels or whether or not there is a God and so on? For those sorts of claims, I would tend to want a conglomeration of different types of evidences. I would want these claims to be inferable logically; at the least, they shouldn’t violate logic. I would want some sorts of historical evidences for the sources of these claims. If I could have personal experience of or trust in the one making the claims, that would help.

This last one is a big one for me. Jesus told a parable about a man who found a treasure in the field, so he bought the field to get the treasure. I’m sort of in that position. I find that my relationship with God through Christ (the treasure) is so meaningful and life-changing, I’m willing to buy other stuff (the field) that goes along with it. For example, apparently Jesus believed in angels. If He did, so do I. I want the treasure, so I take the field.

That’s great. I hope you are successful beyond your ability to imagine. And Thanks! I appreciate the time.

My methodology for evaluating fantastic claims is much simpler. I ask whether the claim is empirically verifiable or can ever be empirically verifiable. If the answer to those questions is “no,” I conclude it’s just another case of pretending.

If we’re talking about an incorporeal fire breathing dragon in someone’s garage, I know that someone’s brain is just getting some exercise. Angels are no different. Same for gods that aren’t trees or mountains or the sun, etc.

I spend much more time on the more mundane claims. They are much more complex and time consuming to unravel. But I still do my share of pretending.

I think we both have pretty healthy brains.

 

[1holycatholic]

If you want to admit polytheism, why not admit Advaita? It is the oldest, most consistent and utterly simplest of them all. It puts all ot these ontological and episotomlogical arguments on a far different and far more appropriate field. It re-illuminates christianism with a practical and useful light, and by Occam’s razor is able to resolve philosophical differences between many systems. Yet it appears to be the least understood and most studiously avoided position of any. Very curious.

Advaita (monism) is nonsensical, not illuminating.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

cpayne:

What about more controversial claims, such as whether or not there are angels or whether or not there is a God and so on? For those sorts of claims, I would tend to want a conglomeration of different types of evidences. I would want these claims to be inferable logically; at the least, they shouldn’t violate logic. I would want some sorts of historical evidences for the sources of these claims. If I could have personal experience of or trust in the one making the claims, that would help.

Very well said! I have enjoyed your posts in this thread. Have your read “The Grammar of Assent” by John Henry Newman? It sounds as if you have.

 

[JDaniel]

That would mean that you and I are to accept as accurate everything we are told. Certainly neither you nor I do that. I could tell you that you owe me $1,200.00. Surely I shouldn’t expect to receive a check in the mail.

So I’m going to ask you how I should go about determining whether I’m pretending that you have two children and whether there are angels. Remember, I only wish to know whether these things are real independent of my own thoughts.

So how would I do that?

The reason I’m asking about pretending is because our brains have these thingies called mirror neurons. With mirror neurons, the ability to pretend is literally hardwired into our brains. That’s pretty intriguing. The question is why this would be so. My take is that the ability to pretend makes for a stronger brain. A stronger brain is like a stronger wall. It can still be misused but it’s still stronger, and as such better prepared to survive. And so we pretend and fantasize because it makes our brains stronger.

But too much pretending would actually weaken the brain. It can even kill it, if it pretends that it can fly off a cliff or stop a locomotive by holding out a hand. So there’s this balancing act enforced by natural selection.

Crow:

Well your last sentence is rather interesting! Am I to conclude that everyone who did not have this “enforced balancing act by natural selection” is . . . dead?

As an aside, since you brought it up, I have an addition to make to Gettier’s problem theory, as sort of an enhancement to the JTB. I call it, “JTB-BPOE”.

There’s an old story about a guy named Sam, who lived in merry old England some 250 years, or so, ago. He had a store, I think, in the town where he lived and liked to stand outside of it, for whatever reasons. He was well known as being of the Realist" school of philosophy.

Well, one day, while standing outside in front of his little store, Sam was accosted by a young (I think) university-man (I think) who proclaimed the he was from the school of Idealism. This young man got all over Sam, determined to rebuke him for the stupidity of his affinity for Realism.

When the young man was finished, Sam, who had earlier spotted a large stone near his foot, kicked it with the toe of his boot and proclaimed, “Thus, I refute you.”

Well, the crowd of people who had gathered by then, chuckled and smiled, at the expense of the young man. Shortly they all left, still chortling and smiling, all having certain knowledge that Sam Johnson had actually rebuffed the youngster. But, did they really have knowledge of whether or not the stone was real? Could it have been, as the university-man had claimed, that it was just an illusion - like everything else?

If memory serves me, later, by coincidence, someone actually did perform several tests on that stone to see if it complied with the typical rules for Reality that every one was familiar with. Sure enough, when dropped, it made a thud, when lifted, it had weight, when measured, its circumference could be measured, and so on and so forth. So the facticity of the stone was justified true belief, but, only after the fact. And, it was true knowledge.

Question: were the onlookers justified in their belief? After all, it might have been an illusion. There could have been a hypnotist, in the crowd, that performed a temporary mass hypnosis on the crowd. Was what they believed true knowledge? I am sure that it was.

I call this proof of true knowledge “JTB-BPOE.” It means, justified true belief by preponderance of evidence. In fact, it is often used to convict, or free, men charged with a crimes, in courts of law. It is sufficient to produce true knowledge.

jd

 

[Detales]

Advaita is not monism. It is non-sense-ical. It is unilluminating, I suspect, because you have no clue as to what it is.

 

[1holycatholic]

Advaita is not monism. It is non-sense-ical. It is unilluminating, I suspect, because you have no clue as to what it is.

tinyurl.com/d9q7qy

 

[cpayne]

That’s great. I hope you are successful beyond your ability to imagine. And Thanks! I appreciate the time.

Thanks to you as well, and best wishes. I certainly hope to meet up with you in heaven.

I will get back a bit later on the other comments.

By the way, if a dragon is incorporeal, would it breathe fire? Would it, as a matter of fact, breathe?

 

[cpayne]

Very well said! I have enjoyed your posts in this thread. Have your read “The Grammar of Assent” by John Henry Newman? It sounds as if you have.

Thank you for your kind words. Yes; in fact, Newman has been very instrumental in helping me move toward Catholicism. I wrote a long essay back a few years ago refuting his argument in his “Development of Doctrine” work, only to find out when I was finished writing it, that he had pretty much convinced me he was right! God has a sense of humor, I think.

 

[JDaniel]

Advaita is not monism. It is non-sense-ical. It is unilluminating, I suspect, because you have no clue as to what it is.

You are correct, sir. It seems rather to be a sort of “elevation of the self”. There appears to be no per se “god” in its philosophy. However, the self and everything else - the whole universe - is said to be eternal, although I am not sure how that squares with the Law of entropy.

Once the world and the universe becomes cold and motionless, what happens to sentient beings? Us?

This is fascinating to me. I hope you don’t mind my questioning.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

tinyurl.com/d9q7qy

Just type in “advaita” into google. Don’t add the word, “monism”. Then check Wikipedia.

jd

 

[1holycatholic]

Just type in “advaita” into google. Don’t add the word, “monism”. Then check Wikipedia.

jd

Given that Wikipedia isn’t a reliable source…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monism
About 1/3 the way down the page:

There are monist pantheists and panentheists in Hinduism (particularly in Advaita and Vishistadvaita respectively)

 

[Detales]

Thank you 1holy and jd.

My experience with several teachers of Advaita tend to lean me strongly in the direction that the entries you refered me to are vastly inadequate for the actuality of the matter.
Advaita is not a religion in the ordinary sense of the Abrahamic or even Eastern religions. It is completely empirical. It, as I have found, having been a well catechised Catholic, is also compatible with christianism in a very profound sense, which the ordinary understanding of christianism actually prevents due to its faith, as distinct from experiential, basis. This includes the rather profound experiences of Christain mysitcs in that they have, due to the intellectual interpretation of their experience, missed the actual significance of their insights. They have mixed apples and oranges. St. Theresa ov Avila is admirable in this regard as distinguishing intellect as a “guest” of the soul.*

As to entorpy, energy is neither added to nor diminished in the total picture. That total picture does not, in terms of physics as we know it today, include the organizational anti entropic force field of Love. In other words, it accounts for the trasmutation of forms to some degree, but not throughout the spectrum that includes the foundation of awareness itself. The law of entropy is one side of a rather different and wonderful equation.

But again, Advaita addresses a different question than the particular knowledge of the mechanics of matter. It treats of the nature of the Self as Consciousness and awarenes, those being respectively the Light to container of ideas and thoughts. Those ideas and thoughts include any accounting for matter. What came first? Was it your sense of “I” or the contents of your accounting system for your experience? Think what your accounting software might be had you been born in another culture or religion. Unless you examine the root, accounting for the tree is only a partial matter. That analogy can go way farther, but that is another topic for now.

As for definitions of monism, they are the scales of blindness to Advaita. They are contents, not substance. Because you have a verbla description, you think you have its referent. Actually, with definitions you only have the a picture of a glass of water when what your thirst requires is that actual drinking of what H2O refers to.

*The question I phrased about “who is the possesor of the soul” is not at all a frivolous one. It has direct bearing on the nature of the points delineated above. Christianity, Catholicism, has a HUGE treasure in its cache that it seems oblivious of.

 

[JDaniel]

Thank you 1holy and jd.

My experience with several teachers of Advaita tend to lean me strongly in the direction that the entries you refered me to are vastly inadequate for the actuality of the matter.
Advaita is not a religion in the ordinary sense of the Abrahamic or even Eastern religions. It is completely empirical. It, as I have found, having been a well catechised Catholic, is also compatible with christianism in a very profound sense, which the ordinary understanding of christianism actually prevents due to its faith, as distinct from experiential, basis. This includes the rather profound experiences of Christain mysitcs in that they have, due to the intellectual interpretation of their experience, missed the actual significance of their insights. They have mixed apples and oranges. St. Theresa ov Avila is admirable in this regard as distinguishing intellect as a “guest” of the soul.*

As to entorpy, energy is neither added to nor diminished in the total picture. That total picture does not, in terms of physics as we know it today, include the organizational anti entropic force field of Love. In other words, it accounts for the trasmutation of forms to some degree, but not throughout the spectrum that includes the foundation of awareness itself. The law of entropy is one side of a rather different and wonderful equation.

Sorry, Detales, I did not make myself clear. When I asked you about entropy, I meant that in relation to the philosophical Advaitist concept that ontological beings, including the universe itself, are eternal. Modern science is saying that the universe is winding down to where all of its particles will reach a state of equilibrium. Meaning, that at some point in the future, the universe will become cold and motionless. All life will have been dead and gone, by that time.

So, if the universe is going to become a large pile of rubble at temperatures of minus a couple of hundred degrees, how will it…, or, is its eternality involved in the pile of rubble it will become? But, if that’s the case, how will the “consciousness” be eternal?

Your profile interests me. You indicate that you are a “roaming catholic.” What does that mean?

jd

 

[Spock]

Well, this thread has gone south, but hey, it happens.

Modern science is saying that the universe is winding down to where all of its particles will reach a state of equilibrium. Meaning, that at some point in the future, the universe will become cold and motionless. All life will have been dead and gone, by that time.

Why is this distortion being quoted over and over again? The second law of thermodynamics says: “in a closed and finite system the available energy tends to navigate toward an equilibrium”. There are other ways to state this law, but they all say the same thing.

Two observations are in order. It does not say anything about the universe itself. It talks about sub-systems of the universe. Nor is this law a deterministic one. Also there are self-organizing processes (life) which allow “violation” of it.

But of course, the incorrect quotation of this law allows a bogus argument for the alleged “creation” of the universe, and thus it is “useful”. Precision? Who needs precision?