justification for existence — Dogbert

Existence is a brute fact and does not require "justification". Besides, even a "transcendent" why begs its own question / precipitates an infinite regress (i.e. every "transcendent" terminus e.g. "god" is arbitrary and unwarranted).

Thank you for your reply! I personally believe the brute fact position is unsatisfying, and that at transcendent ground does not precipitate infinite regress. I would add that on a personal level, the underlying transcendent nature of existence is something that I experience regularly and is very real to me.

You have achieved.. the number 9? Huh. Can't say I ever did that (at least not that I was aware of). So, neat, I suppose. Was it painful? :lol:

Existence comprises minds, ranging from singular particles to entire nervous systems. — Dogbert

Panpsychism is a theory. Have you proven it yourself conducting your own individual research you can share with us or do you just like the way it sounds? :chin:

A word of caution, if I may:

"You always admire what you really don't understand."
- Blaise Pascal

I like to call it "enchantment bias." (Dibs on full credit if I just coined that term right now, BTW.) :grin:

Any naturalistic justification for existence must presuppose some element of what it seeks to explain. Thus, to avoid circularity, it is necessary to posit a transcendent ground of being. — Dogbert

I don’t understand. How is my presupposition any different from your positing of a transcendent ground of being?

sapience is such a rare and significant privilege that personally acquiring it defies coincidence. To make sense of my circumstances, then, I must invoke the MWI — Dogbert

This shows a lack of understanding of what probability means and how it works.

If I win the lottery, I'm lucky. If I become a human being, I'm lucky. Thats how I see it.

... transcendent ground does not precipitate infinite regress. — Dogbert

Explain why it doesn't.

If I win the lottery, I'm lucky. If I become a human being, I'm lucky. Thats how I see it. — Dogbert

This sounds like a discussion we’ve had before. Probably no good reason to rehash it.

I personally believe the brute fact position is unsatisfying, and that at transcendent ground does not precipitate infinite regress. — Dogbert

How is a transcendent ground not brute fact or part of an infinite regress? What third alternative is there?

Existence is a brute fact and does not require "justification". — 180 Proof

Except when life gets hard and one wonders why keep on going.

To put it simply, to say that there is something which transcends the transcendent ground of being would contradict the definition of transcendent.

Think of transcendence as height:

Imagine a mountain that is the tallest in the world.

By definition, nothing is taller than it.

To say there is a taller mountain would contradict the definition of it being tallest.

good point

we have all existed for billions of years as nothing more than commonplace matter. The statement "I became human" makes perfect sense. You existed as commonplace matter, then you became human, then eventually you will return to commonplace matter. Don't act like I'm missing something obvious here that you aren't.

So you have existed for billions of years. We're you ever a mammoth? What was it like?

we have all existed for billions of years as nothing more than commonplace matter. The statement "I became human" makes perfect sense. You existed as commonplace matter, then you became human, then eventually you will return to commonplace matter. Don't act like I'm missing something obvious here that yo — Dogbert

By what standard are human beings not also commonplace matter?

Human beings are commonplace matter in the ontological sense, but that obviously isn't what I meant when I said that.

Is that bait or a serious question?

By what standard are human beings not also commonplace matter? — T Clark

I *think* what he's saying is per law of conservation of matter (or whatever) since the beginning of the Universe, there was and remains the exact same number of atoms in existence. From the moment of the Big Bang to right now as you're reading this. There are no new atoms being made and no atoms currently in existence being destroyed (not sure about black holes). Basically saying, the atoms in each of our bodies (what he considers to be "him", his physical body, not a spiritual or metaphysical essence) are the exact same and have existed for billions of years.

It's... a novel concept. Something to chuckle at for a moment or two, I suppose. But nothing more.

Like, why didn't the atoms in my body end up becoming part of a mountain instead, or part of a star a billion light years away? Why are they exactly as they are, forming my physical body? (etc.)

The disrespect you treat me with is unwarranted and betrays low intelligence.

Existence is a brute fact and does not require "justification". — 180 Proof

Yep.
Existence is taken as granted, not demonstrated.

There's something extraordinarily compromised about a view that seeks to demonstrate "existence". There's even this:

Thus, to avoid circularity, it is necessary to posit a transcendent ground of being. — Dogbert

We can't begin with the existence of the chair you are sitting on, but we can necessarily "posit a transcendental ground of being".

This is such poor thinking it beggars belief.

The disrespect you treat me with is unwarranted and betrays low intelligence. — Dogbert

Accusing people of things that never happened is much worse, pal. All that and more.

"Ennea" is a prefix for the number "9." You can't use words outside of their meaning and expect people to read your mind. We can't. This is an English language forum, if it means something in another language, I apologize. That said, you should have offered some context first before expecting people to just know what you mean without having any ability to.

Once again, your theory is being ridiculed and discounted. Not you. I don't know you. You are not your theory. In philosophy, we attack ideas, not people. I don't know how you could have possibly arrived at the conclusion you have, but I'll keep it in mind that you're on a hair-trigger when engaging in discussions in which you're involved in the future.

It's just the Internet. Lighten up, friend. :smile:

How are you a real person.
That sounds like a copypasta lmao

I just went up to bat for you, dude. Come on, now. Don't attack your one and only wing man in this discussion. :wink:

ok, If you must know, I am appropriating the prefix ennea to mean unifying with the ground. It seems like everyone but you was able to pickup on that from the context. I chose 9 because it has a symbolic significance of finality. The word itself doesn't matter too much honestly, I could have made up something but I liked ennea. You can call it whatever you want, or nothing at all, I don't care. Jesus man.

I chose 9 because it has a symbolic significance of finality.

Explain, please. — Dogbert

It’s because it's the last single digit, and it sorta gets reset to 0 when you get to 10. People have historically attached meaning to that fact I guess.

I'm merely trying to explore what you were before you became human. I don't know what "commonplace matter" may be. I suppose you may have been "just" commonplace matter up to the time you became human. But over the billions of years you lived you may have been an animal, or perhaps commonplace matter that was part of an animal.

I assume you were born, and had a mother and father, or were commonplace matter which was a part of either or both. If not, did God or something else intervene and make you human?

Probably not, I would say. But if not, wouldn't you have been your mother and/or your father, or a part of them? And before that their ancestors down through the ages (who may have included non humans)?

It seems you may well have been a mammoth, then. Or that you may have a very peculiar way of defining what you are.

Part of the matter that constitutes me may very well have at some point belonged to the nervous system of a mammoth, but to say that I would then possess memory of being that animal is ridiculous. So I appreciate you clarifying things.

The best analogy for my view is an ocean. Each mind is like a wave, moving across the water, replacing molecules and changing form as it goes. At one point it was small, combined with this or that ripple, and one day it will crash on the shore and return to that state.

Thus, to avoid circularity, it is necessary to posit a transcendent ground of being.
— Dogbert

This is such poor thinking it beggars belief. — Banno

:100:

Imagine a mountain that is the tallest in the world. — Dogbert

Everest is the tallest mountain on Earth. Olympus Mons, which is on Mars, is over three times taller – neither are "the tallest" possible mountain, so your analogy fails. "Transcendent" only means beyond or exterior to and not (the) absolute limit; ergo "transcendent ground" is like the illusion / horizon of "the largest number" (or "final number") and therefore is surpassable (i.e. Cantor's set theory proves there are infinitely many larger infinities).

Come on, ; if we can have the highest mountain, we can have the beingest being...

:smirk: