Three years later... another attempt to generate interest...

Three years later... another attempt to generate interest... — creativesoul

Your OP is very interesting, and I am surprised that it didn't get attention back then. I hope this thread gets more replies, because it deserves it. Although I am not an expert on logic, I am interested in your premises and conclusions. But it is obvious that I would probably not have the answers or debate you are looking for. Yet, I would make an attempt to keep up with the path or sense of your thread.

Apple pies consist - in part at least - of apples. Apple pies are existentially dependent upon apples. Apples are existentially dependent upon apple trees. When A is existentially dependent upon B and B is existentially dependent upon C, then A is existentially dependent upon C. Apple pies are existentially dependent upon apple trees. Apple pies cannot exist prior to apples or apple trees. — creativesoul

I agree that B - or apples - is existentially dependent upon C - apple trees - but A - apple pies - is not existentially dependent upon C, because its existence depends on other factors.

p1 I have the apples but not the rest of the ingredients. So, apple pies are existentially dependent upon the latter - or other factors -

p2 I have all the ingredients, but I do not cook the apple pie. It depends existentially upon me, not B or C.

p3 Apple trees and apples are produced to make juice - for example - so it is not necessarily that their purpose for existing is the apple pie.

The outline proves itself very useful for evolutionarily amenable discussions about complex things; things that are comprised of a set of more basic irrevocable elemental constituents(simpler things). Water, for instance, or civilization, government, stories, language, meaning, thought, belief, logic, truth. concepts, linguistic frameworks, conceptual schemes, etc. — creativesoul

Certainly if viewed in terms of physical causation, then simple elements are constituents of more complex objects. I think cosmology establishes that the singularity at the origin of the Universe was simple, or at any rate, the very early cosmos comprised only plasma and then mainly hydrogen (which it still is). It wasn't until the formation and then collapse of stars (as supernovae) that complex elements (those elements comprising the remainder of the table of elements) were able to form.

But the question I would raise is one of logical as distinct from temporal priority. Is the order that emerges from the chaos of the very early universe causal or consequential? Logic would seem to indicate the former, as it would be perfectly conceivable that the Universe might simply have remained chaotic (not that there would have been anyone to conceive of it, had it remained so). The emergence of order from chaos is one of an underlying themes in ancient philosophy and cosmology, and obviously a very difficult thing to pronounce on, but the intuition of there being an implicit order which itself has a causal role, from the very instant of the 'big bang', seems at least to suggest a pre-existent or transcendent causal order.

A second question is, exactly what do the purported simple elements comprise? You may recall that the argument of the ancient atomists was that 'the atom' - indivisible and indestructible - provided the solution to this dilemma. Atoms themselves were eternal, the absolute elements of existence, forever being re-arranged to produce the panorama of the cosmos we see today. It has powerful intuitive appeal and is doubtless one of the main philosophical attractions of materialism. But I don't know if it stacks up against the insights of quantum physics, within which sub-atomic particles are seen as excitations of fields. And what 'fields' are, is quite impossible to fathom. All that is known for certain is that they produce and account for specific effects on the arrangements of matter. Their strengths and physical effects can be measured with exquisite precision, but what they really are is another matter.

One of the sleights-of-hand of physical reductionism is to present the purportedly basic constituents of physics as grounding higher-level complex phenomena, through emergence or supervenience or what have you. But the problem with that view is that these simple constituents are themselves defined mathematically, as is the whole super-structure of mathematical physics itself, and are themselves devoid of many of the qualities (qualia!) of the perceived phenomena of existence. So the question of how such mathematical simples actually do comprise complex particulars that we experience is still far from resolved. And then the question may arise, in what sense are the mathematical structures or relationships comprising the objects of physics ontologically fundamental, insofar as they're mathematical in nature? That has been the question of a great many difficult arguments and books, and whilst I don't propose any solution there are still cases being made for a Platonic or Pythagorean attitude which declares number (as distinct from material objects) as ontologically fundamental.

So I'm afraid the 'sheer simplicity' of your outine might only be because it's simplistic. It's a very appealing intuitive image, that of simple elements giving rise to more complex phenomena through the evolutionary process, and arguably one of the reigning metaphors suggested by evolution. But there are a great many philosophical and scientific conundrums thrown up by it. (I own a copy of The Anthropic Cosmological Principle by Barrow and Tipler, a massive tome of 700 dense pages, including a great many equations which are well beyond my level of comprehension, and it is solely concerned with such questions!)

Three years later... another attempt to generate interest... — creativesoul

The OP seems fairly obvious. I think you need to follow through on this:

Let's see what happens when we 'plug in' something a bit more interesting/compelling.. — creativesoul

What was the more interesting/compelling application you had in mind?

The OP seems fairly obvious. — Leontiskos

Obvious? I think the OP has tricky premises which are interesting to discuss. I do not see it is so obvious that A - apple pie - is existentially dependent upon C - apple trees -, unless I am missing something 'obvious' in those premises...

Your OP is very interesting, and I am surprised that it didn't get attention back then. I hope this thread gets more replies, because it deserves it. Although I am not an expert on logic, I am interested in your premises and conclusions. But it is obvious that I would probably not have the answers or debate you are looking for. Yet, I would make an attempt to keep up with the path or sense of your thread. — javi2541997

Thanks for the kind words. I'm not necessarily looking for any particular answers. I'm more interested in the scope of rightful application, the consequences of application, any possible valid negation/objection; any weaknesses or limits, etc.

Apple pies consist - in part at least - of apples. Apple pies are existentially dependent upon apples. Apples are existentially dependent upon apple trees. When A is existentially dependent upon B and B is existentially dependent upon C, then A is existentially dependent upon C. Apple pies are existentially dependent upon apple trees. Apple pies cannot exist prior to apples or apple trees.
— creativesoul

I agree that B - or apples - is existentially dependent upon C - apple trees - but A - apple pies - is not existentially dependent upon C, because its existence depends on other factors.

p1 I have the apples but not the rest of the ingredients. So, apple pies are existentially dependent upon the latter - or other factors... — javi2541997

I agree that apple pies are existentially dependent upon more than just apples, hence, the "- in part at least -" bit. There is more to a complex entity than just one singled out element, and the emergence of complex entities includes all of the elementary constituents comprising the entity. That is the hallmark of necessary elemental constituents; if we remove any particular one, what's left is not enough. No single one is both necessary and sufficient.

p2 I have all the ingredients, but I do not cook the apple pie. It depends existentially upon me, not B or C. — javi2541997

There are uncooked apple pies.

 

p3 Apple trees and apples are produced to make juice - for example - so it is not necessarily that their purpose for existing is the apple pie. — javi2541997

Never said otherwise.

Is the order that emerges from the chaos of the very early universe causal or consequential? — Wayfarer

Hey Jeep! Nice summary. Causal.

I'm not really all that interested in speculating on the origin of the universe. As you may know, I do have a strong methodological naturalist bent, if for no other reason than minimizing the potential of forming and/or holding false belief. My main interest has always been thought and belief, belief systems, worldviews, etc. Current and historical political events show the importance thereof.

A second question is, exactly what do the purported simple elements comprise? — Wayfarer

Again, I find that sort of reduction uninteresting. I'm more concerned with current important events and practices in the macro world with a particular interest on how individual and collective thought and belief systems play a role.

So I'm afraid the 'sheer simplicity' of your outine might only be because it's simplistic. It's a very appealing intuitive image, that of simple elements giving rise to more complex phenomena through the evolutionary process, and arguably one of the reigning metaphors suggested by evolution. But there are a great many philosophical and scientific conundrums thrown up by it. — Wayfarer

Hopefully you'll let me know if I cross any boundaries and venture off into those conundrums. I doubt I will, but I suppose I unknowingly could.

I'm more concerned with current important events and practices in the macro world with a particular interest on how individual and collective thought and belief systems play a role. — creativesoul

I beg your pardon, I thought it was a philosophical question.

It is. :brow:

Well we plainly have different notions of what that consists of, but never mind, I hope someone else has a contribution to make.

Let's see what happens when we 'plug in' something a bit more interesting/compelling..
— creativesoul

What was the more interesting/compelling application you had in mind? — Leontiskos

I think that philosophy proper has gotten human thought and belief wrong. Hence, there are no conceptions/notions thereof that are amenable to evolutionary progression.

Well we plainly have different notions of what that consists of, but never mind, I hope someone else has a contribution to make. — Wayfarer

:brow:

I get the feeling that you're somehow offended? Not sure why or how, but not the aim here. I'm just more interested in a notion of mind that is amenable to evolutionary progression such that it can bridge the gap between language less animals and ourselves. So, the elements we're speaking of are already complex entities themselves...

I agree that apple pies are existentially dependent upon more than just apples, hence, the "- in part at least -" bit. There is more to a complex entity than just one singled out element, and the emergence of complex entities includes all of the elementary constituents comprising the entity. That is the hallmark of necessary elemental constituents; if we remove any particular one, what's left is not enough. No single one is both necessary and sufficient. — creativesoul

I agree. :up:

There are uncooked apple pies. — creativesoul

Ha! This is tricky, but I am honest, and I admit that I didn't think it that way. Exactly, 'A' can be 'uncooked' apple pies too, but if the act of cooking were a possibility, it is still existentially dependent upon my action. I think rather than being 'uncooked apple pies', they are eventual apple pies.

Note: this is the way I see it too. I don't attempt to disagree with your arguments, but to exchange other ways to see the existence of the entity - the apple pies! -

Apple pies are existentially dependent upon having the elements combined by some capable agent. However, not all complex entities are.

You might be interested in Hegel's two Logics, which follow a somewhat similar methodology. But Hegel has the added criteria that we must start without any presuppositions, from a "blank slate." He thinks that dogmatically taking some things for granted will lead us into trouble. E.g. Kant takes for granted that experiences are of objects and ends up in a sort of subjective dualism by starting from this presupposition.

But Hegel's approach isn't so much about temporal priority, since to assume this relation is to assume time and causation off the bat, but rather "what pops up," if we start with as blank a slate as possible, "pure indeterminate being, sheer being."

The book is pretty brutal. I like Houlgate's commentary, it's a lot more straightforward.

But your apple example seems to assume two things:

1. Temporal ordering and causation. Is the dependence relation you're interested one of logical necessity or one of (physical?) causation? Or maybe the two are two sides of the same coin? I could see the argument that our logical sense emerges from the causal, as a form of abstraction that evolution equipped us with, but you can also see arguments for logic being more essential and "at work," in causation.

2. That "elemental" parts are, in ways, more fundemental that wholes. The elemental parts must exist before the wholes, no? But might we consider that the whole sometimes seems to precede the distinction of parts. E.g., we needed the universal process, the fields in which "part(icles) subsist" before we can have the elemental parts? Or, the universal relation through which "mass" emerges must pre-exist "massive particles," as the latter are necessarily defined in terms of the former.

Because it seems to me that you could also work backwards, in the opposite direction. The most general, "all being," is the most essential and simple. Things that "are," are dependant on this whole, and the finer grained "elements," are dependent on all that is "above them." Sort of the opposite of "smallism," a form of universalizing "largeism." Or maybe in, a mysterious way, both, dependence relations extending in both directions?

But I don't know if going in just one direction works, since parts are so often only defined in terms of their whole. This is especially true in terms of how heavily information theoretic approaches are used in physics.

A warm cup of coffee on a table tells us "someone made this recently, it is not at thermodynamic equilibrium, which it would be if it had sat here for a while." And yet that information only exists in the difference between the temperature of the cup and the ambient temperature of the room. Information is essentially relational.

Information, both as Shannon Entropy and Kolmogorov Complexity, needs the whole to be defined. And to the extent that information theory has really made itself a pillar of modern physics and major force in the philosophy of physics (e.g. It From Bit, ideas of information as ontologically basic, pancomputationalism, etc.), it seems more difficult to justify a purely reductive analysis.

The idea of the entire universe as a mathematical object, something you see in Tegmark and others, also seems to make the whole more primary. The elements are only elements because of what the set is, etc.

I might be misreading though.

Apple pies are existentially dependent upon having the elements combined by some capable agent. However, not all complex entities are. — creativesoul

Understood.

Then, there are complex entities which do exist by themselves, and they are one of the main causes or agents that others can exist. In the example of this thread, the complex entity which does exist is the apple tree, because the apples and the apple pie are existentially dependent upon it.

The apple tree matches with 'p1 That which exists prior to something else cannot be existentially dependent upon it', right? Or am I missing something?

Apple trees existed prior to apple pies. Insert p1. Hence, apple trees cannot be existentially dependent upon apple pies.

There's many an interesting avenue packed up in that post. Thanks. I'm currently absorbing it.

:up:

And here is how we might consider the whole universe as absolutely simple: (something I've been trying to figure out how to phrase)


It is ever changing process, but (seemingly) of one substance. Everything seems to causally bleed into everything else, defining "absolute" boundaries seems impossible. Which atoms supervene on a candle flame? Where is the edge of the forest? Per Mandelbrot, what is the length of the English coastline? The further you zoom in, the more jagged outcroppings and microscopic bays appear, and the "length" stretches on an on.

Different discrete "things," "objects," might then be thought of as the result of perspective. They are not "unreal." Rocks and trees are plenty real, but they are also process not unchanging unity. Trees will grow, their boundaries ever changing, and then decompose and scatter. Rocks do the same on a longer time scale. Even protons undergo a life cycle, being born and undergoing decay.

The division of the one universal process into "parts" then is a question of "differences that make a difference," which are inheritly dependant on perspective from within the overall universal system.

For an enzyme, the presence of isotopes in a chemical reagent is generally irrelevant. In the context of the perspective of that reaction, the extra neutrons are a difference that fails to make a difference. And indeed, even with all their complex tools, diamond dealers would be unable to distinguish between two identical diamonds that varied only in the ratio of isotopes.

So the differences, information, is relational between subjectively defined (although not arbitrary) parts of the unified whole.

If fields permeate the entire universe, if, as Wilzek suggests, we think of space-time as a "metric field," and if unification, the "field of fields," is possible, then this unity is primary. An electron cannot exist prior to the EM field. Things cannot exist in space-time prior to the metric field. Quarks and the phenomena of QCD cannot preexist the universal fields involved therein.

But if course the cat or the apple tree does not precede the atoms that make them up. So it seems we might progress from the very small and the very large, meeting complex entities in the middle?

Or maybe only from the top down, on the idea that looking at smaller and smaller entities is simply to define our "area of universal process," into smaller and smaller slices.

What's interesting is that the history of any complex entity will cast a wider and wider causal net as we go backwards in time, as the "parts" get more diffuse in space and time while we move backwards. But in an absolute sense, the full causal history of entity has to go all the way back to the birth of the universe. Meaning the processes that "make them up," are always in some way connected.

Apple trees existed prior to apple pies. Insert p1. Hence, apple trees cannot be existentially dependent upon apple pies. — creativesoul

Exactly.

I think we have to focus on what is needed to exist a priori to let apple pies exist. Because, despite apples and apple trees being key elements to their existence, we understand that they are not the only elements of an eventual apple pie.

Obvious? I think the OP has tricky premises which are interesting to discuss. I do not see it is so obvious that A - apple pie - is existentially dependent upon C - apple trees -, unless I am missing something 'obvious' in those premises... — javi2541997

I think you are mixing up sufficient and necessary conditions. This is how I read the OP: If A is existentially dependent upon B, then B is a necessary condition for A, but not (necessarily) a sufficient condition. Apples are necessary for apple pie, but they are not sufficient.

I get the feeling that you're somehow offended? — creativesoul

Not at all - just a bit exasperated at having misinterpreted the aim of the OP.

2. That "elemental" parts are, in ways, more fundemental than wholes. The elemental parts must exist before the wholes, no? — Count Timothy von Icarus

I had the same thought, but when I re-read the OP I realized it doesn't commit itself to this. With the exception of p5, the OP is entirely negative: it is all "cannot". "Must exist prior" is no part of the OP.

I think you are mixing up sufficient and necessary conditions. This is how I read the OP: If A is existentially dependent upon B, then B is a necessary condition for A, but not (necessarily) a sufficient condition. Apples are necessary for apple pie, but they are not sufficient. — Leontiskos

I agree with you, and I think I have expressed somehow the same thought, but I didn't use the same precise vocabulary and knowledge as you did. I said that having apple trees and apples are elements for an 'eventual' apple pie.
But you explained it better: they are not sufficient for the apple pie.

You might be interested in Hegel's two Logics, which follow a somewhat similar methodology. But Hegel has the added criteria that we must start without any presuppositions, from a "blank slate." — Count Timothy von Icarus

We work from starkly different criteria regarding what counts as a 'somewhat similar methodology'. One takes note of time. The other denounces the practice. The aim is the evolutionary progression of mind, thought, belief, worldviews, knowledge, etc. Of course it presupposes time.

There is a distinction to be drawn and maintained between our account/report and what we're taking account of and/or reporting upon. They are completely different entities. Our report includes meaningful language use. What we're reporting upon does not always. So, when it comes to insisting that "we" start with a blank slate - as reporters - that's impossible. Blank slates don't write.

However, as far as blank slates and the first thinking or believing creatures go...

It had to start somehow. Much to my own dismay, I've found that the gradual nature of evolutionary progression - when it comes to the emergence of human consciousness - refuses to offer the deep satisfaction of an ah-hah - there it is - moment in time. It's not like adding vinegar to baking soda. It would be more like watching the erosion of oceanfront tectonic plates in real time. There would not be a sudden clear distinction from this moment to the next when the candidate under consideration/observation suddenly becomes conscious in the way we describe ourselves with that word.

We've been drawing all sorts of complex meaningful correlations, connections, and/or associations between all sorts of different entities for a very long time. Many, if not most of those correlations include language use... for us anyway. Some language less creatures are capable of forming, having, and/or holding thought and belief about the world and themselves. They do it the very same way we do. The differences between thinking and believing creatures involve the content. The content is limited by the biological machinery the candidate is equipped with.


Yup.

I think it's pretty well certain that our report of the evolutionary progression of human thought and belief presupposes both, time and causality - as it must. That's what the words mean, after-all. I mean, it's impossible to set out a timeless progression of past events. That's nonsense.

Shannon Entropy — Count Timothy von Icarus

Reeks of anthropomorphism...

I had the same thought, but when I re-read the OP I realized it doesn't commit itself to this. With the exception of p5, the OP is entirely negative: it is all "cannot". "Must exist prior" is no part of the OP. — Leontiskos

Very astute! I'm impressed. Some things emerge simultaneously. Meaning, truth, and some of the simplest thought(s) seem to me to do exactly that.

Some language less creatures have belief. Belief emerges prior to language. All belief is meaningful to the believing creature. Meaning emerges prior to language. Some language less belief is true. Truth emerges prior to language.

Seems that way to me anyway.

Not at all - just a bit exasperated at having misinterpreted the aim of the OP. — Wayfarer

Good. Sorry for the disappointment I was part of. I've always liked you Jeep. :smile: Hope you're well. You seem so. Moderator now too!

>>>>insert shaka<<<<

:cool:

I think we have to focus on what is needed to exist a priori to let apple pies exist. Because, despite apples and apple trees being key elements to their existence, we understand that they are not the only elements of an eventual apple pie. — javi2541997

Well, if our aim was to acquire knowledge of all of the necessary preconditions pertaining to the emergence of apple pies, then we would have to focus on that. I'm not seeking omniscience, nor do I require it. We can know some things are prior to others. We can know some things consist of others. Etc. Seeking and acquiring some knowledge is a useful endeavor. We need not know everything in order to know some things.

The apple pie example was meant to get familiar with the discipline set out in the OP. We can have more interesting talks, to me anyway, regarding the emergence of truth, meaning, and belief.