In the right context this sentence could be part of a poem or a work of literature. But there is no logical or philosophical conundrum here. — EricH

Really, are you sure?

Well, the history of Poetry itself is quite intriguing, as you may know. It dates all the way back to Africa and what they call the 'pyramid texts' written, I think, back somewhere around the 25th Century BC. As you could imagine, much of those texts were religious in genre (as there are many genre's today in Poetry) and captured the emotion of the time. For example, dealing with death rituals; the afterlife, tombs, mummy's, you know ancient Egyptian kinds of things. And much like this emotional discussion, life and death can be quite an existential sojourn.

However, we are not talking about emotion, we're talking a priori logic. And so to that end, try to parse these propositions:

1. He was driving and not driving. True or false or something else?

2. God is time dependent and timeless. True or false or something else? [as it relates to this thread/Cosmology]

3. Jesus had a consciousness that transcends logic. True false or something else?

I think they all have to do with some form of Ontology, but am not sure.

I think the di-polar picture of God with a primordial and a consequent nature found in Whitehead and in process theology is one notion of God worthy of some consideration and discussion in philosophy of religion — prothero

Nice!

I think it would help to consider existence seeing as we are discussing god and time. Most would consider existence and being integral to time in that nothing can exist if it has no duration. Ie that anything that exists is and always will be doing so in relation/relatively to something else - that information is occurring or that change is proceeding in some way.

So if existence is dependent on the passage of time then could anything have qualities that reside beyond the relevance of time? I doubt it.

Furthermore, Time, space, energy and matter are all interdependent in one another for their existence in relativistic terms so I don’t see why if we focus on time we ought not to account for the simultaneous development of the other fundamental states.

Perhaps God is the point from which time space energy and matter proceed and is therefore a unified single entropic state of creation rather than something that interacts with the specific traits that it generates.

if existence is dependent on the passage of time then could anything have qualities that reside beyond the relevance of time? I doubt it. — Benj96

Benj!

Keep in mind that if the prevailing Big Bang theory is correct, then it follows that something outside of time created temporal time itself. And of course, that's all within the context of creation xnihilo. Perhaps you are thinking that time always existed in some way shape or form...

After reading more, I think I see the aim here 3017amen.

2. God is time dependent and timeless. True or false or something else? [as it relates to this thread/Cosmology]
— 3017amen

2. God is time dependent and timeless. True or false or something else? [as it relates to this thread/Cosmology] — 3017amen

3. Jesus had a consciousness that transcends logic. True false or something else?

Nothing can transcend logic, because logic arrives from one undeniable fact. What is logical, is what exists. If God exists, then God existing is logical. If God exists, it is our descriptions about God that must be logical. Just because we might have some incorrect descriptors, does not deny God's existence.

So if we say God is both timeless and in time, it is our definitions that we must take care of. Kind of like the car situation. Its just a problem with us using general descriptors that aren't quite the same.

A true contradiction can be shown through math. 1=1 Now equality is entirely, 100% the same thing. There is zero difference in even the tiniest point. The problem is I think you're taking general words that are similar, but not quite the same.

Its like saying, 1.00001 = 1.0000001. The decimals have a lot of zeros, and for most general purposes, we shave off the remaining decimal places because we don't have time in communicating to use exactness everywhere.

A lot of descriptions of God are like poetry. What they are trying to convey is the majesty and mystery of God. A fine pattern in poetry is to relate things we normally think as the same in a general context, result in an odd dissonance when placed in a context they normally wouldn't.

So for example, we say God is omniscient, omnibenevent, and all the omnis, we are stating these things to convey that the power, goodness, and knowledge of God are so great in comparison to ourselves, we are insignificant. It is to evoke awe. They are not intended as logical arguments.

Now this does not mean that we cannot make them into logical arguments by putting the dropped decimal places back. Yes, it is impossible for a God to do anything, even contradict itself. So a simple fix is to add the decimal places back that state, "God is as powerful as it is possible to be within existence." Basically instead of saying God = infinity, we say God = The biggest real number expression of power in existence.

When you say God is timeless, you can say, "God is the origin. There was nothing before God. So God did not form by time, but was the beginning of time. God of course then is still involved in time. Time is not a substance, it is simply the observation that objects have a set relational position at one moment, then another set relational position at another moment. God cannot be outside of this.

Finally, Jesus did not have a consciousness that transcended logic. If Jesus existed, and he had his consciousness, then it is a logical possibility. There is nothing illogical about proposing that Jesus was God expressed as a man, only the difficulty in describing what that would mean, or how to prove such a thing.

I understand the zeal for belief in God. There is nothing wrong with that. It does not make you unintelligent. It is a hallmark of intelligence that we should be curious about and question about God.
But a zeal for a belief in God should not allow us to dismiss the reality in front of us, or ignore logical principles. Perhaps that means you will have to abandon certain ideas about God. Or perhaps you will have to add the decimals back to some of that poetry, and understand the point in a new light.

At the end of the day, if God exists, he gave us a brain that is better than, for all we know, anything else in the entire universe. God would not want us to throw that away to believe in God. How are we any better than the animals then? God would want us to use that brain to discover God as God actually exists, and not simply be inspired by poetry, or how we might desire that God exists.

Nothing can transcend logic, because logic arrives from one undeniable fact. What is logical, is what exists. If God exists, then God existing is logical. If God exists, it is our descriptions about God that must be logical. Just because we might have some incorrect descriptors, does not deny God's existence. — Philosophim

Philosophim!

Consider that logic cannot explain the true nature of consciousness (we cannot create or design consciousness from nothing/something; we can only make babies that replicate it). And consider that logic cannot fully explain the universe (ToE). And if we have a conscious existence that is beyond logical explanation, there must be something that goes beyond the natural realm of explanation, hence, transcendence. We can describe things using logic and math (the speed of neurons/electrons/photons, laws of gravity, engineering formulas, and so on), but we cannot explain the true nature of existing things-in-themselves. As Kant might argue, that which is beyond logic, is either phenomenal and/or metaphysical.

Of course, easy examples of phenomena/metaphysics is the feeling and perceptions of colors, of love, of music, of mathematics, of time, etc.. All of those things that we perceive, like time, are not materially objective phenomena. In fact, the metaphysics of time perception, as we know from relativity and time travel, presents a sense of illusion and unresolved paradox. Logically, among other things, those are our descriptors of it.

So if we say God is both timeless and in time, it is our definitions that we must take care of. Kind of like the car situation. Its just a problem with us using general descriptors that aren't quite the same. — Philosophim

Of course. And those general descriptors are concepts like: contradiction, paradox, logically impossible, logical possibility, super-natural, transcendence, et al. Those descriptors in themselves are descriptors for a reason. Consider a different set of axioms or truth's in a world that did not have those existing descriptors from the languages describing their reality. In principal, in a different world, you would have a slightly different set of descriptors, presumably. In layman's terms, 'the problem' as you say, is ignorance/incomplete knowledge about things-in-themselves; the nature of our existence.

Alternatively, in theoretical physics, we do have theories that posit a dipolar God that fits into the notion of logical possibility. So sure, I can agree with you there to that extent.

When you say God is timeless, you can say, "God is the origin. There was nothing before God. So God did not form by time, but was the beginning of time. God of course then is still involved in time. Time is not a substance, it is simply the observation that objects have a set relational position at one moment, then another set relational position at another moment. — Philosophim

No exceptions taken.

Finally, Jesus did not have a consciousness that transcended logic. If Jesus existed, and he had his consciousness, then it is a logical possibility. There is nothing illogical about proposing that Jesus was God expressed as a man, only the difficulty in describing what that would mean, or how to prove such a thing. — Philosophim

Exceptions taken as noted; please see my forgoing response above. The 'proof' lies in consciousness, the thing-in-itself, being logically impossible to explain. And that doesn't preclude meaning of life questions/explanations, which are not limited to other metaphysical phenomena that humans may experience and grapple with.

How are we any better than the animals then? — Philosophim

Self-awareness.

So for example, we say God is omniscient, omnibenevent, and all the omnis, we are stating these things to convey that the power, goodness, and knowledge of God are so great in comparison to ourselves, we are insignificant. It is to evoke awe. They are not intended as logical arguments. — Philosophim

Agreed. Hence your sense of poetry. But no worries; metaphor, allegory, poetry and analogy has existed throughout ancient history as yet another form of metaphysical language, all to achieve another means to an end. Accordingly, our descriptors for the beginning and end, are beyond logic.

Ok, I think the issue here is your use of logic can I think be replaced by "knowledge". Its not that consciousness is illogical, its that we don't fully understand how it works. Consciousness is logical, because it exists. If consciousness both existed, and did not exist, then it would be illogical.

Saying something exists does not necessitate that we explain why or how it exists. It is only illogical if its existence would contradict something that we already know must exist. Something can be true, and something can be false. But if A != B, both A and B cannot be true. That's all logic is. Its just a recognition of impossibility in one's conclusions.

Perhaps if you changed your word choice, you would not encounter issues. Few people would take issue with, "We do not know how consciousness works." But when you claim its illogical, what you are saying is that consciousness both exists, and does not exist. Apart from poetics as discussed, that won't convince many people to listen. If you are interested in spreading your belief about God, you want as many people who will listen as possible.

To conclude, when you say things like, "logically impossible attributes exist", you are conveying something which itself, cannot exist. If it is logically impossible, then exists in both a state of truth, and falsity. You can't state it exists, because, it also does not exist. And at that point, we aren't talking about anything real. If you state instead, "there are attributes that we do not yet, or may never fully understand", I think you'll find a lot more reception to your ideas.

Those are my thoughts anyway. Enjoy the Friday 3017amen, I know I am!

Ok, I think the issue here is your use of logic can I think be replaced by "knowledge". Its not that consciousness is illogical, its that we don't fully understand how it works. Consciousness is logical, because it exists. If consciousness both existed, and did not exist, then it would be illogical.

Saying something exists does not necessitate that we explain why or how it exists. It is only illogical if its existence would contradict something that we already know must exist. Something can be true, and something can be false. But if A != B, both A and B cannot be true. That's all logic is. Its just a recognition of impossibility in one's conclusions. — Philosophim

I'm not with you on that one. Consider the liar's paradox. The only way out (or at least one way out) is paraconsistent logic making it both true and false. But that's not the axiom for logical impossibility because under those rules, it can't be both. The proposition that he was driving and not driving is logically impossible since we know under those rules it cannot be both (at the same time and same respect). Yet your consciousness allows for that. In other words, there are multiple truth values that contradict each other. (You can apply the same rules to omni-3, ontological, and cosmological propositions because they are a priori modal/formal logic/deductive reasoning.)

To this end, I was dreaming about sitting on the beach=one truth value. I was driving my car=another truth value. I had two completely different perceptions of reality seemingly at the same time because my body was still driving somehow while at the beach. As far as I was concerned, I was not driving at all, yet in reality, I was in fact driving. So while my mind told me I was at the beach, it wasn't really true at all, it was an illusion (kind of like time---another analogy altogether). My mind tricked me because the reality of me dreaming about the beach instead of driving caused me to crash and kill myself without my knowledge and awareness of driving. I had no control over this stream of consciousness; the conscious, subconscious and unconscious phenomenon.

The point to all this is, formal logic is not suited for explaining the nature of existence, the things-in-themselves, unexplained phenomena (and otherwise simply living life a posteriori).

But when you claim its illogical, what you are saying is that consciousness both exists, and does not exist — Philosophim

That's correct. It can't be explained using deduction. and so it transcends logic. Under the rules based on a priori propositional logic, it becomes logically impossible. I didn't invent the rules.

If you state instead, "there are attributes that we do not yet, or may never fully understand", I think you'll find a lot more reception to your ideas. — Philosophim

That's the point Philosophim. When someone says they don't understand something, one should use the rules of logic and reason to parse the statement in order to determine it's truth value. The concept of God a priori (deductive logic) is no different. It is very obvious that finitude exists, and for that very reason, we have said other concepts such as paradox, contradiction, logicall impossibility, etc. also exist as a result of that same sense of ignorance. Otherwise, why do those concepts exist?

Thank you for the well wishes Philosophim, I hope you have a wonderful weekend. We can continue the discussion next week. I want to try and see if you can get out of your confort zone and perhaps embrace the notion of illogical existence, and what that really means.

I'll leave you with a light hearted quote from pragmatist William James: "Philosophy lives in words, but truth and fact well up into our lives in ways that exceed verbal formulation. There is in the living act of perception always something that glimmers and twinkles and will not be caught, and for which reflection comes too late."

Once again - for those making assumptions or claims about the nature of God, what such a being could or could not do, be or not be, etc.

Do you have a reasoned argument that we have the ability to make such claims, or assumptions. Not trying to be difficult, but it seems an important concept that we should all understand. That if we make any proposition at all about the nature of God, we have no real basis to justify that claims. — Rank Amateur

Yes, we require a meta-analysis of the meta-metaphysics that underlie the discussion of god as numerous assumptions go into prescribing a specific nature to the label "god". We, as philosophers, should be worried and constantly vigilant of whether our discussions have devolved into semantic games with adjustable boundaries of meaning to any or all terms important to the argument.

There are just so many If --- Then God arguments that propose as true the "if" and then propose as false the "then" with some kind of truth assumption on our ability of know as even close to true any of it.

This includes the argument from evil, and every God paradox you have ever heard. — Rank Amateur

Rather true as the problem of evil is only an argument that pokes holes in a particular conception of god or the Judeo-Christian one common among layman (though even this definition is vague from philosopher to theologian with regards to precisely clarifying its properties).

Please prove that human logic has anything to do with phenomena the scale of gods. Thank you. — Jake

Is the logical apparatus (classical logic) able to reflect reality model wise on those scales? Yes, then we can safely continue using it until it breaks but if not then in comes uncertainty or metaphysical vagueness inherent to reality which could forego any collisions henceforth.

GODS: Proposals about the most fundamental nature of everything everywhere.

LOGIC: The poorly developed ability of a single half insane semi-suicidal species only recently living in caves on one little planet in one of billions of galaxies. — Jake

Gods are usually proposed as a particularly anthropomorphized beings that are supposed to serve as an all encompassing reason for what is compared to others. Using the term to mean talk about fundamental structures of nature everywhere or every when is to invite a term with rather thick baggage. Logic on the other hand is an abstract model that with certain accompanying axioms (classical logic, para-consistent, fuzzy logic, etc) serve better uses technologically or in performing metaphysical overhauls of our ontology.

That's correct. It can't be explained using deduction. and so it transcends logic. Under the rules based on a priori propositional logic, it becomes logically impossible. I didn't invent the rules. — 3017amen

Experience and our thoughts exist so what is it that does and doesn't exist? What else is it that you require to constitute consciousness that isn't our readily waking experiences and our mental abstractions there from.

As far as I was concerned, I was not driving at all, yet in reality, I was in fact driving. — 3017amen

Driving needs to be defined here as I could define driving as that experience of operating a vehicle as only indulging in purely waking experiences rather than abstractions in full. So because you were dreaming you were then not in fact actually driving.

My mind tricked me because the reality of me dreaming about the beach instead of driving caused me to crash and kill myself without my knowledge and awareness of driving. — 3017amen

Yes, you were not directly aware of and performing the task of driving so therefore you were not driving. You were dreaming and not driving. . . remember a limp body un-respondent to external stimuli holding onto a steering wheel in a moving hunk of metal wouldn't be readily intuitively defined as driving a car.

It seems that your issues are more semantic than they are ontological.

The 'proof' lies in consciousness, the thing-in-itself, being logically impossible to explain. — 3017amen

Logically impossible to investigate fully not to explain. To assert it's not possible to describe or abstractly investigate our mental faculties via forms of logical analysis internally is one thing but this merely relays the fact that we cannot think outside ourselves. . . have you forgotten that and will correct this statement of absolute truth into one of contingency.

Experience and our thoughts exist so what is it that does and doesn't exist? — substantivalism

Consciousness exists but it's logically impossible to explain. In the context of an attribute that transcends formal logic, Jesus also had attributes that were logically impossible to explain.

So because you were dreaming you were then not in fact actually driving. — substantivalism

He was driving and dreaming and unwillfully killed himself.

You were dreaming and not driving. . . remember a limp body un-respondent to external stimuli holding onto a steering wheel in a moving hunk of metal wouldn't be readily intuitively defined as driving a car. — substantivalism

He was not driving, he was on a beach, but happened to be driving.

It seems that your issues are more a priori than they are phenomenological.







.

Logically impossible to investigate fully not to explain. — substantivalism

No. Logically impossible to explain.

Consciousness exists but it's logically impossible to explain. — 3017amen

No. Logically impossible to explain. — 3017amen

Because intuitively explanation involves our ability to investigate and therefore fully understand whatever is that we are explaining I can give you this that it's logically impossible.

In the context of an attribute that transcends formal logic, — 3017amen

I have no idea whether the abstractions we use completely and indubitably reflect the reality is in terms of the true nature of our experiences. This means I cannot absolutely say anything about including whether the abstract relations or modeling of reality we get from using classical logic or a weaker form is really uncovering all there is to reality or missing something.

Jesus also had attributes that were logically impossible to explain. — 3017amen

His acclaimed miracles are only that, claims, and to further substantiate that his miracles deserve to be placed not in the real experience of seeing a fictional character on screen but in the box of experiences you have everyday with your acquaintances or the physicality of your chair you'll have to argue for that. Though, there is a difference between lacking an explanation and seeing it as logically impossible so you will have to tell why these dubious metaphysical claims of Jesus are not just to belong in the bin of fictions but also as events on there own happened for reasons no person could understand or gain any knowledge therein from.

He was driving and dreaming and unwillfully killed himself. — 3017amen

He was driving? Then he knew the proper protocol and had training to avert whatever disaster was about to transpire. He didn't do any actions, have waking experiences that is, to avert the disaster so it occurred. . . he wasn't therefore driving. To be driving you have to be aware of and fully prepared to interact with your waking experiences not do so with your inner abstractions.

He was not driving, he was on a beach, but happened to be driving. — 3017amen

You, with previous knowledge and experience, definitely know the difference (if not rather implicitly) about what is a waking experience versus one that's a dream or an inner abstraction. Imagine sitting in a chair then open your eyes (assuming you are already in a chair) and pay attention to how they appear. Both equally as real but their relationship to you as well as their surface level natures are distinct ergo imagining you are at a beach is not the same as having a waking experience of being at a beach. NO materialism or naive realism technically has to be assumed here and any form of idealism probably would tell you something similar i'm assuming.

Also, driving has to involve the waking active experiences of a person and given they were indulging in (willingly or unwillingly) in those of the imagined then they couldn't be driving.

He was driving? — substantivalism

Yes because his obituary was noted in the media.

Well, let's go with our favorite definition of god - omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. These attributes form both the sufficient and necessary conditions for god. Every other attribute of god is secondary, incidental, and irrelevant. God being changeless means that these attributes that define god don't change, no matter what.

Ergo, it being true that creating space, time, and matter neither adds nor subtracts from omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence, god remains changeless despite doing these things.

God being changeless means that these attributes that define god don't change, no matter what. — TheMadFool

Sure. We can discuss a priori concepts of God.

Firstly, would you like to make an argument relative to the effectiveness of mathematical truths viz the concept of a timeless God?

Firstly, would you like to make an argument relative to the effectiveness of mathematical truths viz the concept of a timeless God — 3017amen

As far as I can tell, the only mathematical concept applicable to god is infinity. Time, to my understanding, has to do with real numbers and while real numbers are a bigger infinity than naturals there are infinities bigger than reals and then there are infinities bigger than those infinities and so on. Quite naturally god as an infinite being must be this infinite progression of infinities and since time is only as big as the infinity of reals, it must be that god can't be contained in time - god's timeless.

far as I can tell, the only mathematical concept applicable to god is infinity. Time, to my understanding, has to do with real numbers and while real numbers are a bigger infinity than naturals there are infinities bigger than reals and then there are infinities bigger than those infinities and so on. Quite naturally god as an infinite being must be this infinite progression of infinities and since time is only as big as the infinity of reals, it must be that god can't be contained in time - god's timeless.
1h — TheMadFool

Are you thinking that say, if metaphysical abstracts like mathematical truth's, are necessary to describe the rational laws of the universe, then a necessary God of similar abstract truth is logically possible? Mind you, all of that (that judgement) is based on deductive reasoning, including math itself, being a priori.

Or saying it another way, if mathematical truth's are timeless and eternal, how can we link it to the concept of God? And maybe the more important concept is whether or not mathematics have an independent existence or are invented by us, it is an a priori truth nonetheless.

Are you thinking that say, if metaphysical abstracts like mathematical truth's, are necessary to describe the rational laws of the universe, then a necessary God of similar abstract truth is logically possible? Mind you, all of that (that judgement) is based on deductive reasoning, including math itself, being a priori.

Or saying it another way, if mathematical truth's are timeless and eternal, how can we link it to the concept of God? And maybe the more important concept is whether or not mathematics have an independent existence or are invented by us, it is an a priori truth nonetheless. — 3017amen

That's a lot to take in. Think of it this way. Math is more of a language than anything else - I think Galileo made that remark. The laws of the universe are not mathematical in the sense that it's math, as language; it's only that the laws are "written" mathematically. Laws are "alterable" and I can only convey that using an example. Take the law of universal gravitation: G(m1*m2)/(r^2). It's mathematical alright but the exact relationship between the variables and constant needn't be as it is to us at the present moment and the value of G also could be something else. For instance, it could've been G(m1/m2)*r^3. This demonstrates that there's nothing "timeless and eternal" about the laws of nature themselves.

Where does god come in? If he does/did exist, only as an author of these laws who made a decision to use math as the language of choice. The language is, quite possibly, timeless and eternal but the laws themselves are not.

Ok. So I think you see where I'm coming from, and I also think I see where you are beginning to come from. You seem to be implying that illogical thinking is a solution to problems. Not the only solution mind you, but depending on how you are defining it, you can come to an illogical conclusion.

To think illogically is to hold contradictions. It is to believe in something that is impossible to exist. It your choice to believe such things. I however, cannot. To me, any time I encounter a contradiction, I know I have done something wrong in my thinking. It could be my understanding, my definitions, or just simply reality not adding up as I intended.

While you can choose how to think in life, I would caution against applying illogical thinking to God. If God exists, it is not a contradiction. God is not illogical, and the things which would extend from God, are not illogical either. Illogical Gods are the fictional myths of Cu'Thulu for example. They are seen as villians and the patron deities of irrational cults. Irrationality is often seen as madness. The Christian God never processes to be illogical. Mysterious? Yes. Beyond our complete understanding? Yes. But there is the underlying idea that there is a plan, an order, and a logic of good that God understands in their plan for humanity.

This is evidenced by then 10 commandments. Simple, logical laws that define how a person should live. Jesus acted with a logical intent. While some who did not understand why Jesus sacrificed himself on the cross might call him mad, when understood it is logical.

It is not that I think you are mad, it is dipping your toe into illogical thinking is to speak with madness itself. It is the realms of cults, and evil. I think you are dipping into illogical thinking in your zeal for understanding what is simply outside of our bounds of knowledge. You are looking for a solution when the only answer is, "I don't know." It is ok to realize the limits of what we can know. It is ok to believe in a God when we do not know all of the answers. But I feel dipping into illogic to get such answer is a road to hell paved with good intentions.

Yes because his obituary was noted in the media. — 3017amen

What? He (lets assume it was you and you survived the crash) didn't have any waking experience of interacting with the car nor being able to do so (ergo he was focusing on a different kind of experiential input) but to be considered driving the kind of experience you must indulge in is that of what we call waking experiences (who's surface level nature is starkly different to that of the imagined or dreamed).

There are a lot of concerns I have with your thinking. Other than your point about having a lack of understanding (finitude) which of course I agree with, I believe you are unfortunately repeating old paradigms that I seem to recognize as a far-right fundamentalist ideology. I hope I'm wrong there

I don't want to hijack this particular thread however, I would welcome another thread if you want to discuss those 'ethical' concerns further (purpose, meaning, causation, will, and so forth).

If you like I will ague that from our thinking, and sensory perceptions, we have contradictory, illogical components to them. Whether it's the illusion and paradox of time; the phenomenon of love, dialectic versus binary thinking, a priori vs. a posteriori logic, etc., our disposition is to dichotomize and chose either/or rather than integrate those opposites of illogical contradiction, as naturally occurring in nature. And when recognized properly, leads to confirmation, (at the very least) that something else is in control that is indeed counterintuitive.

We can start by parsing the phenomenon of love relative to the human condition, as it has been perceived and understood from various disciplines. We know that love itself is a mystery, but we also know that acts of love can transcend pure reason (the a priori). And finally, we know that love is both a subjective and objective truth: not either/or.

You can start the thread with whatever argument you feel the strongest about...

Take the law of universal gravitation: G(m1*m2)/(r^2) ... For instance, it could've been G(m1/m2)*r^3 — TheMadFool

How intriguing . . . please explain.

How intriguing . . . please explain. — jgill

I don't think I can make it clearer than that.

There's no reason why physical laws have to be such that the exact same mathematical relationship holds between the various parameters involved, right?

you make a valid point One would imagine the cause of the Big Bang is external to time. But I think this lies on the assumption of “linearity” and I prefer/tend to lean towards cyclical phenomena as the basis for a lot of physical processes. Frequency. So for me the Big Bang is not so much a beginning but perhaps a singular state in the set of all states that both completes and begins a cycle. Kinda like the “zero point magnitude” of a wave at the beginning or end of a period.

So for me the Big Bang would be a something like a condensation of space, time, matter and energy into one. And that they contract and expand into their respective behaviours from this state

I believe you are unfortunately repeating old paradigms that I seem to recognize as a far-right fundamentalist ideology. I hope I'm wrong there — 3017amen

Lol, no, I mentioned these archtypes as warnings about using illogical thinking. Perhaps it was a poor idea. My intent was to ask you if you had thought about whether using illogical thinking was a good idea, even if it could give you an answer (not a logical one of course) that you desired.

I have a feeling our differences are in the definition of illogical. Typically in the context of philosophy, one of the basic definitions of illogical, is concluding something wrong in regards to equivalence. By equivalence, I mean equal down to the very tiniest part of the context and meaning behind the statement. I feel that when you are referring to illogical, you are doing it in a context beyond philosophy where equivalence is not the focus, but "Almost or similarly equivalent".

So yes, outside of philosophy when people say, "Love is illogical," I understand the context is one of sentiment, not equivalence. Within philosophy, love is not illogical, unless it has been proven to be illogical. Of course, the context of what "Love" is may also differ. Romantic love, love for your fellow man, and love for your enemies can all be variations of love that may or may not be illogical if examined in an atomic context.

There is nothing wrong with using language in a loose manner to describe sentiment such as awe, wonder, etc. But philosophy is not "the love of sentiment" it is the "the love of wisdom". Wisdom requires tight definitions and logical conclusions. The sentimental arguments are concerned with working through our emotions, and can serve that purpose well. Budah claimed it was not the fundamental questions of the universe people were asking that needed to be answered, it was simply a matter of the heart and an emotional need that needed to be fulfilled first.

If you like I will ague that from our thinking, and sensory perceptions, we have contradictory, illogical components to them. — 3017amen

If you believe that you can argue about such ideas within the context of logic and illogic within the context of philosophy, then feel free! If it is a matter of sentiment, poetry, and is not willing to drill down into its atomic parts, then there is no need. I have no questions of matters of the heart at this time in my life, only matters of logic. Feel free to start the thread as I would not be sure where to even begin. I will keep an eye out and join you there.

Yep, point well taken! Most think there was a continuum of expansion. Others are not so sure:

https://www.livescience.com/65254-what-happened-before-big-big.html

But philosophy is not "the love of sentiment" it is the "the love of wisdom". — Philosophim

Ahh, but what moves wisdom forward? Wisdom itself? How is wisdom advanced, and for what purpose? Something beyond pure reason, you think? Please share your thoughts. Those answers are important.

Within philosophy, love is not illogical, unless it has been proven to be illogical. — Philosophim

Illogical: lacking sense or clear, sound reasoning. That's of course a generic definition from
Webster's. And that's also sort of a segue to love. Is love itself considered sound reasoning? And as you suggested, in passing, how does one prove it's illogical? What is considered love's means and methods? Are they transcendent in some way? (Sorry for the questions, just putting some metaphysical thoughts out there... .)

Now Philosophim, what I thought you were going to respond with is a clear distinction between a priori and a posterior kinds of logic, all in order to distinguish the limitations of each. But I see you didn't go there. However, in the context of our discussion of logical impossibility, which is based upon a priori deductive reasoning, the question relates to how can consciousness be explained through deduction. That's the specific question (for you). And that's the other important question.

So if there was a new thread, it would be called something like: What are the limits of deductive reasoning (and logical impossibility).

Ahh, but what moves wisdom forward? Wisdom itself? How is wisdom advanced, and for what purpose? Something beyond pure reason, you think? Please share your thoughts. Those answers are important. — 3017amen

A good question. I believe wisdom is the realization of reality as much as humans can comprehend it. I believe the motivation to find wisdom can be many things. Some people have an innate desire to simply know the reality of a situation. Some want to know what to do with their lives going forward. Some need it for utility. After all, if you have a solid understanding of reality, you are able to much better predict and shape it into what you want.

Illogical: lacking sense or clear, sound reasoning. — 3017amen

This is a general descriptor that unfortunately does not answer what it means to have sense, or clear sound reasoning.

Sound reasoning can be summarized as "Holding non-contradictory thoughts". In philosophy, were we are looking for exactness, This means A != A is illogical. A compared to A, is an identical identity to the smallest unit of measurement. A !=99.99999999% match to A is not illogical, but logical. This is because there is a difference between both A's, within a certain unit of measurement. In general language, we often use very broad terms that mean different things in different contexts. So we may use something like, "A birch and a redwood are both trees. In this sense, they belong to a broader term, so we can say,
Birch = tree && Redwood = tree. But we can't say, Birch = Redwood in the technical sense, because they aren't a 100% exact match.

In another sense, we lower the exactness needed. I can say two pieces of cut metal are 1 meter long if I don't care about it being off by a millimeter, and I can say "They are equal in regards to the context of a meter". If however I care about millimeters, "They are not equal in regards to the context of millimeters".

So love then. It depends on the context of love that you speak of. It depends by what you mean when you say its irrational. To be irrational, there must be a comparison to something. Saying love is irrational without comparing it to something, is like saying, "A birch tree is wrong". Wrong how? Irrational how? That's the technicalities of philosophy. A large part of it is diving into the language, finding idosynchrasies in conclusions, and trying to make the implicit underlying assumptions of the topic, explicit to reveal where these idosynchrasies come from.

I actually do not believe in the distinction between a priori and a posteriori. Well again, based on how you define it. These are terms that have been battered about by Quine and several other philosophers for years. I find I don't need them as distinctions either to think logically. So when I think of consciousness, I do not think it is illogical, because I find no contradiction in the existence of consciousness within reality. As for the actual inner workings of consciousness, not knowing, does not mean it is illogical. For years people did not understand what the Sun was, or how it worked. That did not make the existence of the Sun illogical.

As for philosophical guesses at consciousness, I believe it is moving out of our hands. We must look to neuroscience for answers, and can postulate on that. For example, https://www.sciencealert.com/harvard-scientists-think-they-ve-pinpointed-the-neural-source-of-consciousness#:~:text=Researchers%20have%20long%20thought%20that,work%20together%20to%20form%20consciousness . here you can read about Harvard reasearchers who believe they have identified where consciousness is developed and handled in the brain.

Sorry if it was a bit long! I will look for any posts you have started if you want to carry on the conversation elsewhere.