It's been said in these forums, and (though I'm not an authority) it seems right to me, that abstract logical facts are demonstrate — Michael Ossipoff

No, not how you'd say they're demonstrated. What you think the ontological source of them is--basiscally, where do you think it comes from?

Abstract implications can be about propositions that are about hypothetical things. .... — Michael Ossipoff

So you're thinking that aboutness is in . . . some person-independent abstract realm or something?

No, not how you'd say they're demonstrated. What you think the ontological source of them is

.
None. None needed. I’m not saying that any of it is real or existent in any context other than in their own inter-referring context.
.
I assert that existence and reality, in the ipcd realm, only have meaning with respect to and in a specified context.
.

--basiscally, where do you think it comes from?

.
No need for reality or existence in any context external to it
.

”Abstract implications can be about propositions that are about hypothetical things.” .... — Michael Ossipoff
.
So you're thinking that aboutness is in . . . some person-independent abstract realm or something?

.
I don’t claim that any of it is about anything real or existent.
.
It could be argued that even abstract-implications are a meaningless notion without someone to be aware of them, and that there’s no such thing as person-independence. …but what if that person is complementarily built-in to the system? That satisfies the need for an observer. Frank Tippler and Max Tegmark have said that too. …have said something to the effect that the observer whom the logical system is about, gives it whatever apparent (to that observer) existence it needs (if it needs any). (…even though Tippler and Tegamark were Realists.)
.
It seems to me that Nisargadatta, too, said something to the effect that you didn’t make this universe, but you give it its “reality” (…such "reality" as it has, or seems to).
.
I’m saying that the person, the experiencer, the protagonist of the experience-story, is complementary with the abstract-implications. It’s a whole complementary system that’s independent of anything external to it, and doesn’t need any reality or existence.
.
In what external context does any Materialist believe that this physical universe (including any physically-inter-related multiverse that it’s part of) exist or have reality?
.
What we know is that our physical world is real and existent in its own context, and that of our lives. What other reality or existence does it need? In what other ipcd context could it have existence and reality?
.
Michael Ossipoff

None. None needed. I’m not saying that any of it is real or existent in any context other than in their own inter-referring context. — Michael Ossipoff

And where is "their own inter-referring context"?

And where is "their own inter-referring context"? — Terrapin Station

If you mean spatially, this universe (...which I mean to include the entirety of any physically-inter-related multiverse of which our Big-Bang-Universe is part) isn't in any space external to it. For it, the only space is the space that's an attribute of it (including, of course its overall spatial system, and the particular spatial-systems of its sub-universes such as out Big-Bang-Universe).

In other words, our universe isn't in external space.

If you don't mean spatially:

For the complex system of inter-referring abstract implications about propositions about hypothetical things, that is your life-experience-story, "[its] own inter-referring context" is (only) among those abstract-implications, propositions and hypothetical things.

Where with respect to anything else? No relation to anything else. Each such system is entirely separate, isolated and independent from others (...which, by definition, aren't inter-referring with it) and from any putative (but nonexistent) continuum or medium in the ipcd realm.

By "the ipcd realm", I mean "The totality of all the systems in which there is ipcd logical structure* ".

*not that there's any other kind of logical structure.

...including, for example, your experience-story and the physical world in which it's set...even though of course your experience isn't ipcd, except in specific respects regarding certain aspects of your surroundings....like the logical relations among its events and things, and the sorts of physically-perceived "facts" that can be written down.

After I posted my most recent reply, I felt that I should clarify that there's a big ontological/metaphysical error among academic philosophers if they think there's such a thing as "objective existence" or "objective real-ness" in the ipcd realm. There isn't.

It's meaningless to speak of "objective existence" or "objective real-ness" in that realm.

Existence and real-ness there are only meaningful in and with respect to a specific context.

Other than in that realm? How would I know.

Michael Ossipoff

I haven't the faintest idea what you're saying in most of that, unforunately.

I haven't the faintest idea what you're saying in most of that, unforunately. — Terrapin Station

Fair enough.

If you don't ask what I mean by at least one passage, word, phrase, sentence, etc., that's your choice, and none of my business.

But, saying that you don't understand what I said, without specifying a particular passage, word, phrase, sentence, or meaning--obviously isn't an answerable objection or a convincing objection.

But, (Rhetorical question only--Don't feel obligated to reply.) which part of this don't you understand?:

It's meaningless to speak of objective existence or objective real-ness.

Existence or real-ness means something only in and with respect to a specified context.

Believing in such a thing as objective existence and real-ness is a common error of academic philosophers and people at this forum.

This physical world, the setting for our experience, is undeniably real and existent in its own context and in the context of our lives, and it would be meaningless to say that it's objectively existent.

Michael Ossipoff

It's meaningless to speak of objective existence or objective real-ness.

Existence or real-ness means something only in and with respect to a specified context.

Believing in such a thing as objective existence and real-ness is a common error of academic philosophers and people at this forum.

This physical world, the setting for our experience, is undeniably real and existent in its own context and in the context of our lives, and it would be meaningless to say that it's objectively existent. — Michael Ossipoff

Most of that I understand at least as presented . . . I just don't agree with most of it.

I agree with this: ". . . means something only in and with respect to a specified context," simply because meaning is something that individuals do, so for anything to mean anything, an individual has to think about it in the relevant associative manner.

And I agree with this: "This physical world, the setting for our experience, is undeniably real and existent in its own context and in the context of our lives," although the curious thing there is that the physical world in question is the objective world, so that doesn't really make sense to me with respect to the rest of your comment.

Also, that's not really addressing what I was trying to get you to address, but maybe that wasn't the idea, and what I was trying to get you to address wasn't very important anyway.

You said:

.

I agree with this: ". . . [Existence or real-ness] means something only in and with respect to a specified context,"

.
…and then:
.

the physical world in question is the objective world

.
Objective existence is the opposite of only-contextual existence. So the 2nd statement of yours that I quoted above contradicts the 1st one.
.
Our physical world is what we observe, experience and are part of. That doesn’t make it objectively-existent.
.

Also, that's not really addressing what I was trying to get you to address.

.
I answered your questions as best I could interpret them. If, by your questions, you meant something other than what I answered, then feel free to re-word your questions. I don’t evade questions or refuse to answer them.
.
Michael Ossipoff

Maybe you're conflating two different meanings for "objective":

1. More than contextual

2. Unbiased or based on observation

Michael Ossipoff

A mind in isolation is hardly alive. Life is a discourse between minds, between what is self and not self. Life is union.

In the "beginning" God was alone, in the void. 'Then' creation came into being and God emerged from mere existence - the void - into life and being. Through creation God becomes the living God.

The materialist implicitly asserts that a person is no more than a collection of molecules. How can a bunch of molecules produce a person? The person and the psyche are far too sublime and evolved to be merely a property of molecules. So I believe in dualism but not that Trump is a critter...

Objective existence is the opposite of only-contextual existence. — Michael Ossipoff

The first statement you quoted, the first thing I agreed with was about meaning. It wasn't about context re anything else.

The phrase "only-contextual existence" is something I can't really make sense of. So it's difficult for me to agree or not agree with you about that part.

Maybe you're conflating two different meanings for "objective":

1. More than contextual

2. Unbiased or based on observation — Michael Ossipoff

I'm definitely not using a "more than contextual" phrase, because I don't know what the heck that would amount to. The idea of context being a quantificational property, so that we could have "more than it," makes no sense to me.

I also wouldn't used "unbiased or based on observation" for "objective," for a couple reasons. One, I don't believe it's possible to be unbiased. Two, it seems confused to me to refer to something that people are doing re thinking/reasoning/etc. as "objective." I rather use "mind-independent" or "external to mind(s)" as the definition of "objective."

Materialists claim that this physical universe has (in some unspecified sense, by some unspecified meaning) existence and realness other than in its own context (or that of our lives). Is their claim about that meaningless?

Fine. If "more than contextual existence or real-ness" doesn't mean anything to you, then you won't claim that this physical world has existence or real-ness other than in its own context. ...since, according to you, such a claim would be meaningless.

Then any previously-perceived disagreement was just a misunderstanding.

Then it isn't clear how you think this physical universe is other than or more than the setting of a hypothetical experience story consisting of the uncontroversially-inevitable logical system that I've described, a system of inter-referring abstract-facts about propositions about hypothetical things.

By the way, at a different thread, you agreed that there are no things, just facts. How does that reconcile with a claim that this physical universe consists of more than the setting in an experience-story consisting of a system of inter-referring abstract-implications?

Michael Ossipoff

You believe things exist that you can't describe? — Terrapin Station

Interesting question! :up: :smile: Do I think existing-things are constrained by my ability to describe them? No. Do I therefore think that there could be things out there, real things, that I am incapable of describing? Yes.

Maybe you mean that it's meaningless to speak of something's existence and real-ness in its own context, because anything is real and existent in its own context.

Of course. But I was talking about a claim that this physical universe is real &/or existent in some context other than its own. ...a claim that Materialists, but not I, make about this physical universe.

Michael Ossipoff

But I was talking about a claim that something is real &/or existent in some context other than its own — Michael Ossipoff

Can something - anything - exist outside its own context? I can't parse that, I'm afraid.

Can something - anything - exist outside its own context? I can't parse that, I'm afraid. — Pattern-chaser

Of course it can. The country of France exists in the larger context of Europe, to give a spatio-geographical and cultural and historical example.

MIchael Ossipoff

Can something - anything - exist outside its own context? I can't parse that, I'm afraid. — Pattern-chaser


Of course it can. The country of France exists in the larger context of Europe, to give a spatio-geographical and cultural and historical example. — Michael Ossipoff

That looks to me like you're simply observing that contexts can be nested. France exists in its own context, and within Europe (...the world, solar system, galaxy, etc :wink: ). I don't think anything can exist outside its own context. :chin:

why not? Can´t a person deduce that, if a universe can form for no good reason, anything else can happen too? Including entities capable of producing new universes.

The country of France exists in the larger context of Europe, to give a spatio-geographical and cultural and historical example. — Michael Ossipoff


That looks to me like you're simply observing that contexts can be nested. France exists in its own context, and within Europe (...the world, solar system, galaxy, etc :wink: ). I don't think anything can exist outside its own context. — Pattern-chaser

But you agreed that France exists within Europe. France's history and culture can meaningfully discussed in the context of overall European history and culture. So doesn't France exist in the European context, in addition to its own context?

Michael Ossipoff

why not? Can´t a person deduce that, if a universe can form for no good reason, anything else can happen too? Including entities capable of producing new universes. — DiegoT

Sure. But I didn't say that this universe formed for no good reason. I said, instead, that this universe consists of the setting in your life-experience-story, which is an uncontroversially-inevitable complex system of abstract-implications about propositions about hypothetical things.

Abstract-implications don't need an explanation. I didn't even say that an inter-referring system of them "exists" in any context other than its own.

Someone suggested that it's meaningless to speak of something existing in its own context, because....what doesn't exist in its own context??? Good point. Of course.

But the existence of this physical universe in any other context is unsupported.

Michael Ossipoff

Interesting question! :up: :smile: Do I think existing-things are constrained by my ability to describe them? No. Do I therefore think that there could be things out there, real things, that I am incapable of describing? Yes. — Pattern-chaser

That's a different idea, though--it's more agnostic or neutral. I mean "positively" or "actively" believing in something that one can't describe.

Why are either the mind or the body substances? Im no genius but to me "substance" seems to belong to scientific language games. Surely substance has no place in a properly philosophical language game.

So doesn't France exist in the European context, in addition to its own context? — Michael Ossipoff

Isn't that what I said? :chin:

That looks to me like you're simply observing that contexts can be nested. France exists in its own context, and within Europe (...the world, solar system, galaxy, etc :wink: ). I don't think anything can exist outside its own context. :chin: — Pattern-chaser

ETA: I.e. France exists in a European context, but this does not exchange the One and Only Context that France can occupy. [ Irony. :wink: The One and Only Context of anything is a nonsense, I think. ] In this case, France exists simultaneously in its own context, and that of Europe, the world, the Solar System, etc. I don't think anything can exist outside its own context.

If we imagine something truly outside of any context, how do we define that thing? We define and understand things in their context(s), not in isolation. In the case of the universe, where there is no outside, nothing external to it, we might say it is its own context. But that isn't true of anything else, is it? :chin:

That's a different idea, though--it's more agnostic or neutral. I mean "positively" or "actively" believing in something that one can't describe. — Terrapin Station

Interesting question! :up: :smile: Do I think existing-things are constrained by my ability to describe them? No. Do I therefore think that there could be things out there, real things, that I am incapable of describing? Yes. — Pattern-chaser

So, not really "positively or actively believing", more acknowledging possibilities. :up: :smile: As you say, more agnostic/neutral. :up:

Right, the idea of "I believe that P" or "I believe 'in' x," where one cannot describe P or x, is incoherent.

I think philosophers use substance as a reference to the foundational level of reality in a given context. Like, the substance of oral speech are vibrations of air molecules. Sub-stance, what under-lies (the whole of Reality or a system within it)

Do you use substance in this "prima materia" sense? or is there another way of using the word

Right, the idea of "I believe that P" or "I believe 'in' x," where one cannot describe P or x, is incoherent. — Terrapin Station

Yes, I'd love to agree with this ... but I believe in God, Someone I cannot adequately describe or define.... I'm human; sometimes we're "incoherent". :smile:

You're throwing the word "adequately" in there. I didn't say anything about that.

You'd believe in God to the extent that you have some concept/understanding of God, and you'd be able to describe the concept/understanding that you believe.