Everything we see and experience is transposed. We don’t see a color. We perceive it as such, but really it’s the absence of the color in the spectrum. — Brianna Whitney

If you look at a green Christmas tree light, it looks green, because either it's emitting green light, or because its colored glass is absorbing all the visible wavelengths but green, or absorbing at &/or around green's complementary wavelength,(Magenta.. Green and Magenta are complementary to eachother.)

If you look at a yellow Christmas tree light, it looks yellow because either it's emitting yellow light, or because its colored glass is absorbing all the visible wavelengths but yellow, or absorbing at &/or around yellow's complementary wavelength (Blue)..

Cold is the absence of heat.

...but cold is perceived as a separate sensation of cold.

Dark is the absence of light. Substance is perceived by the space around it’s form,

Well, we perceive a substance by itself. It's primarily the object itself that you perceive. But sure, if it's the same color and texture as its surroundings, then you might not notice it. Of course many insect, birds, reptiles and mammals make use of that principle for concealment.

The facts here, are mostly facts of physical science. ...not metaphysics or other philosophy.

But it should be emphasized that people's color-perception has as much to do with human design as with wavelength...to a greater extent than most people probablly realize.

...but that still isn't philosophy. It just means that biology is involved as well as wavelength.

These things function through laws of entropy.

Entropy governs some events in thermodynamics.

But, as I said above, this is all physical science (and sense-biology too, in the case of color-perception).

If you assume metaphysics is true...

There are uncontroversial facts about metaphysics that can be said with certainty.. It probably isn't provable that any metaphysics, alone, is true (and that part of some other metaphysics isn't true along with it). That's because most proposed metaphysicses are consistent with our observations (otherwise they wouldn't be proposed)..

It certainly can't be proved that no metaphysics is true.

...and expand from there, you’ll stumble on odd laws of our world.

Negative.

Physical laws don't contradict any reasonable proposed metaphysics. If physical observations contradicted a metaphysics, then that metaphysics would be abandoned by most people who are interested in metaphysics.

Be willing to kill it if it no longer serves purpose or starts driving you over the edge crazy.
Real or not, it’s a waste of brain space if it doesn’t serve a purpose.

Recommendation: Then you might prefer engineering.

But we here, at these philosophy forums, like philosophy.

Michael Ossipoff

"And just because there’s a metaphysical explanation for why and how it happened doesn’t make it any less amazing". — Michael Ossipoff

I remember a few incidents when I was younger when I was suddenly shocked that there was anything at all. — ff0

Yes, the question "Why is there something instead of nothing" is an often-asked question.

Michael Faraday answered that question in 1844. I couldn't find details of what he said, but what I found agrees with the metaphysics that I've been proposing. Frank Tippler and Max Tegmark have proposed similar things, but it seems to me that they've both missed the mark in a few ways..

Anyway, the metaphysics that I've been proposing answers that question, in terms of systems of inter-referring inevitable abstract facts.

I was also shocked by the specificity of what was. 'It is exactly this way and no other. There are three weeds at this Northeast leg of the park bench. That particular plane with its particular passengers flies overhead.'

Kenneth Patchen wrote, "In general, why is everything so specific?"

As we were discussing, the particular way that this world is, is one of infinitely-many ways that the infinitely-many worlds are. There are infinitely-many of them, and ours is one of them.

The world that you were born in likely had something to do with the person that you were. (even if there isn't reincarnation),

These days I have a better argument for brute facticity, and yet it's rare to feel wonder as I did once.

I'm biased towards brute facticity because it makes the world new.

But it would still be new by my metaphysics (which doesn't have any brute-facts), as your life-experience possibility-story plays out.

But I also think it's logically necessary

All that's logically-necessary for our universe is a system of inter-referring abstract facts. Because those facts are inevitable, there's no brute-ness

"Time is short. It isn’t the usual state of affairs". — Michael Ossipoff

I know what you mean, but in a way it is the only state of affairs.

...until we reach the end of lives (or the end of this life if there's no reincarnation) and reach the timeless sleep.

We live either one finite lifetime, or a finite number of finite lifetimes. ...and then timeless sleep.

Finite time in life, and then timeless sleep.

So time isn't the only state of affairs. In fact, timeless sleep predominates, although of course sure, we aren't there yet, and won't be for a while. ...either at the end of this life, or (more likely) after a sequence of lives.

More tomorrow.

Michael Ossipoff

Categories of things...

i That which provides the necessary and sufficient conditions for an agent's being able to draw mental correlations between 'objects' of physiological sensory perception and/or it's own mental state.

ii That which is a part of an agent's drawing mental correlations between 'objects' of physiological sensory perception and/or it's own mental state.

iii That which is existentially contingent upon an agent's already having drawn mental correlations between 'objects' of physiological sensory perception and/or it's own mental state.

If you look at a green Christmas tree light, it looks green, because either it's emitting green light, or because its colored glass is absorbing all the visible wavelengths but green, or absorbing at &/or around green's complementary wavelength,(Magenta.. Green and Magenta are complementary to eachother.) — Michael Ossipoff

It’s reflecting a color and absorbing the rest. It is the other colors, it’s separated at the area we see as color.

but cold is perceived as a separate sensation of cold — Michael Ossipoff

I’m talking of cold, not feeling it.

‘Microscopically in the description of quantum mechanics, however, matter still has zero-point energy even at absolute zero, because of the uncertainty principle.’-Wikipedia

If it were possible to cool a system to absolute zero, all motion of the particles in a sample of matter would cease and they would be at complete rest in this classical sense.-Wikipedia

Dark is absolutely the absence of light. Do we agree there, at least?

Well, we perceive a substance by itself. It's primarily the object itself that you perceive. But sure, — Michael Ossipoff

My point here is that what we perceive isnt necessary what is.

Entropy governs some events in thermodynamics. — Michael Ossipoff

Second definition of entropy. Things progressing into disorder. Time measures entropy.

Think really hard upside down and backwards and you might get the possibility of space as an object, and the object lack of space.

I’m talking about odd not contradictory. Why bother thinking of anything if you can dissect what we know a million more times? There’s been some shockers if you try, tho.

Ha! If you haven’t gone near mad, you’re not a very good philosopher.

My unsolicited advice was that letting the mind go silent allows what is to be.

You’re rude.

You’re rude. — Brianna Whitney

Hey Internet forums are pretty rough-and-tumble, you know. Keep it up, your contributions are beiing appreciated. (Y)

Yes, the question "Why is there something instead of nothing" is an often-asked question.

Michael Faraday answered that question in 1844. I couldn't find details of what he said, but what I found agrees with the metaphysics that I've been proposing. — Michael Ossipoff

As I've argued, I don't find the idea of an answer in general plausible. If there is something because of X, then X itself is either the brute fact or itself unexplained.

Anyway, the metaphysics that I've been proposing answers that question, in terms of systems of inter-referring inevitable abstract facts. — Michael Ossipoff

But (I must ask again) are the people you love inevitable abstract facts? Is that how you experience them? For me relationships are among the highest things. Other people as people. Not just the idea of a person (which, like all ideas, has a certain shallowness) but the living presence of others. That my be my fundamental complaint about abstract theologies. They betray or ignore our direct experience of being with others, of sharing a practical world with others. This criticism doesn't apply to your sense of a sort of benevolent God, because that's a general sense that life and the world are good.

Kenneth Patchen wrote, "In general, why is everything so specific?"

As we were discussing, the particular way that this world is, is one of infinitely-many ways that the infinitely-many worlds are. There are infinitely-many of them, and ours is one of them. — Michael Ossipoff

I can't accept automatically that there are infinitely many worlds. On the other hand, the billions of lives I have nothing to do with are plurality enough. But your attempt to answer the why with what I'd call theology doesn't do it for me. I like that you can relate to wonder, but you're sending me mixed messages on this issue. That's fine. Just sayin'

All that's logically-necessary for our universe is a system of inter-referring abstract facts. Because those facts are inevitable, there's no brute-ness — Michael Ossipoff

I can't agree. The question would be 'why are they inevitable?' I guess we could call the bruteness subjective. I don't believe that so-called fundamental explanations can get the job done --on principle, according to how I understand explanation. The totality is untouchable in this sense.

So time isn't the only state of affairs. In fact, timeless sleep predominates, although of course sure, we aren't there yet, and won't be for a while. ...either at the end of this life, or (more likely) after a sequence of lives. — Michael Ossipoff

But it only predominates abstractly and quantitatively. We don't experience this sleep. As mortals we can contemplate (or try to) the world before and the world after our passing. But we're always here when we do that.

The world that you were born in likely had something to do with the person that you were. — Michael Ossipoff

I'd call that an understatement. Yeah, we're thrown into a particular body. We're given particular parents, a face we did not choose, and so on. Then it's even 'little' things like the books we happened to bump into as teenager's for instance. Or the things we were praised or blame for in our formative years.

Good conversation, btw.

"If you look at a green Christmas tree light, it looks green, because either it's emitting green light, or because its colored glass is absorbing all the visible wavelengths but green, or absorbing at &/or around green's complementary wavelength,(Magenta.. Green and Magenta are complementary to eachother.)" — Michael Ossipoff


It’s reflecting a color and absorbing the rest. It is the other colors, it’s separated at the area we see as color. — Brianna Whitney

Sure, with reflecting objects. Something can be green because it emits only or mostly green light, or because it absorbs, from (reflected or transmitted) white light, everything but green, or absorbs mostly around green's complement, magenta.

You said, "It is the other colors", but, because merely emitting only green light makes an emitting object green, I wouldn't say that the other colors are necessary to something being green.

Dark is absolutely the absence of light. Do we agree there, at least?

Certainly.

My point here is that what we perceive isn't necessary what is.

Sure, but you're talking about science, not philosophy. And metaphysics is in no way in competition or contradiction with science.

...you might get the possibility of space as an object, and the object lack of space.

Of course. That's how i'd regard it if I'm looking for an region of empty floor-space at which sit, a place where there isn't an object in the way.

As for rude: Disagreement, even blunt disagreement, isn't really rude, unless the disagreement is expressed in a manner that criticizes, characterizes, negatively evaluates, the person you disagree with.

I disagreed with your comments about the truth and worth of metaphysics, and said so.

My justification of metaphysics can be found in my recent replies to ff0.

Michael Ossipoff

"Michael Faraday answered that question in 1844. I couldn't find details of what he said, but what I found agrees with the metaphysics that I've been proposing." — Michael Ossipoff
.
As I've argued, I don't find the idea of an answer in general plausible. If there is something because of X, then X itself is either the brute fact or itself unexplained.

.
If X is inevitable, it doesn’t need explanation. Of course it would be necessary to give an argument that it’s inevitable.
.
I’d said:
.

Anyway, the metaphysics that I've been proposing answers that question, in terms of systems of inter-referring inevitable abstract facts. — Michael Ossipoff

.
You repy:
.

But (I must ask again) are the people you love inevitable abstract facts?

.
No, and they aren’t electrons or quarks either. But that doesn’t invalidate physics.
.
You’re assuming an either/or choice between metaphysics and loved-ones. Remember, this is a philosophy forum. With no disrespect toward families, friends and relationships, they aren’t all that philosophy discusses.
.

This criticism doesn't apply to your sense of a sort of benevolent God, because that's a general sense that life and the world are good.

.
I didn’t say “sort of “ benevolent. …or emphasize a possessing entity, least of all by name.
.
Maybe a disposition implies a possessor, certainly in our grammar, but I suggest that any notion about that possessor, including that application of grammar in the first place, is an effort at reification, an over-anthropomorphism, an unrealistic, overextended claim of understanding …as is the notion of existence.
.
For people to speak of whether God exists, is like mice speaking of whether humans gnaw hardwood or softwood.
.
Many Theists don’t say that God is a being.
.

I can't accept automatically that there are infinitely many worlds.

.
But in what sense did I say that there are? Only in the same sense that, there’s the fact that if all Slithytoves are brillig, and all Jaberwockeys are Slithytoves, then all Jaberwockeys are brillig.
.

On the other hand, the billions of lives I have nothing to do with are plurality enough. But your attempt to answer the why with what I'd call theology…

.
As I suggested above, it seems to me that theology assumes a lot more knowledge, understanding, and information than is possible.
.
But metaphysics isn’t theology. What metaphysics deals with is discussable and describable.
.

“All that's logically-necessary for our universe is a system of inter-referring abstract facts. Because those facts are inevitable, there's no brute-ness” — Michael Ossipoff

I can't agree. The question would be 'why are they inevitable?'

.
I addressed that matter in a recent reply to you.
.
1) A fact that there are no facts other than one fact that there are no other facts, would be a special brute-fact, calling for explanation, but not having one (How could it, if there are no other facts?)
.
2) Because a system of inter-referring abstract if-then facts about hypotheticals needn’t refer to anything outside its own local inter-referring system, then the burden of proof is on anyone who wants to claim that it it is in some way dependent from some context or permission outside itself, or subject to the some global fact that could have prohibited it.
.

I guess we could call the bruteness subjective. I don't believe that so-called fundamental explanations can get the job done --on principle, according to how I understand explanation. The totality is untouchable in this sense.

.
“Explanation” can consist of inevitable facts that imply the observations that are to be explained. What is there about that to not believe in?
.
Metaphysics doesn’t touch the totality, Reality. What it’s about is discussable and describable.
.

“So time isn't the only state of affairs. In fact, timeless sleep predominates, although of course sure, we aren't there yet, and won't be for a while. ...either at the end of this life, or (more likely) after a sequence of lives.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
But it only predominates abstractly and quantitatively. We don't experience this sleep.

.
Sure we do. We experience the arrival at, and initial stages of that sleep. What we don’t experience is a time when we don’t experience.
.\
I said:
.

The world that you were born in likely had something to do with the person that you were. — Michael Ossipoff

.
I should clarify what I meant. I meant (whether there’s reincarnation or not) the person that you already were, influenced the world that you were going to be born in
.
How could you be a person if you weren’t born yet? No problem. You were a hypothetical person, the protagonist of a hypothetical life-experience possibility-story. The hypothetical person that you were was the protagonist of that hypothetical story.
.
Because I’m speaking of hypothetical, things, I’m saying things that are difficult to disagree with.
.
But of course it’s likewise true that the conditions in the world you were born in greatly influenced you after your birth.
.
Let me say a few more words, for clarification, about the timeless sleep at the end of lives:
.
I might have said something misleading:
.
When referring to timeless sleep, I might have seemed to be implying experience of infinite duration. Of course I didn’t mean that. Not even subjectively infinite duration.
.
But I was talking about a stage of shutdown at which there’s no knowledge that there ever was or could be such a thing as time or duration.
.
And likewise, even though that time is close to complete shutdown, there’s no knowledge that there’s such a thing as an end to experience either. To summarize, I said a time of no experience is never reached, and there’s no knowledge that there is such an end, and there’s no knowledge of duration. Because the person has reached Timelessness, and never experiences no-experience, then I suggest that the fact that shutdown is approaching is entirely irrelevant, as is the shutdown when it occurs (as perceived by your survivors).
.
That’s a reason why I say that the timeless sleep at the end of lives counts for more than this finite life, or more than a finite number of finite lives.
.
…that, along with the fact that it’s the final state/situation, where the state of affairs finally arrives at.
.
But I don’t mean to make a big deal about it either. It’s like going to sleep. It is going to sleep. That already happens nightly. It’s no big deal. I emphasize that so as to not make it sound like some scary new awesome experience.
.
Well, because there’ll be no needs, wants, problems, lack, menace, etc., it has been argued that that time will be awesomely good.
.
Anyway, above are the justifications for saying that the timeless sleep at the end of lives is more for us than this finite life, or more than a finite number of finite lives.
.
There’s another justification too:
.
I’ve been emphasizing that a system of inter-referring inevitable abstract facts about hypotheticals, such as the one that is your life-experience possibility-story, doesn’t need a medium in which to be.
.
In particular, it doesn’t depend on support or hosting from the Nothing that is its background. Nothing wouldn’t be nothing if it did that. It would be a medium or agent, and it isn’t.
.
But we can still speak of the Nothing that is the background of all the inevitable abstract if-then facts about hypotheticals.
.
And what could be more metaphysically fundamentally and natural than that? Yes, there are all those inevitable if-thens about hypotheticals. But their Nothing background is the quiescent background of that something.
.
Well, that timeless sleep at the end of lives, as I becomes a deeper and deeper sleep, of course more and more becomes experience of less and less. Less is closer to Nothing.
.
So, at near-shutdown, you’re peacefully, restfully (and some say very pleasantly—the best part of your life) returning to your fundamental original home, what’s most natural.
.
I’ve been stating some reasons why the timeless sleep at the end of lives can fairly be said to be more natural than this finite life in this “physical” world of time and events.
.
Michael Ossipoff