Let me ask you a question, what does "existence" mean to you?

...I would consider "existence" as "to be" (or "being"). — Bob Ross

Excellent. Do you think the concept of "being" has always existed (or do you think that this concept had a beginning)?

For example, a unicorn that I imagined in my mind exists as an imagined unicorn... — Bob Ross

Has that concept of a unicorn always existed? Or does that concept of a unicorn only exist for a certain amount of time (such as while you imagine it)? If the concept of the unicorn did not always exist, does that mean the concept of the unicorn had a beginning?

Do human beings exist? Do you think the existence of human beings had a beginning? Or do you think human beings always existed?

Excellent. Do you think the concept of "being" has always existed (or do you think that this concept had a beginning)?

Depends on what you mean. If you are referring to "being" as "existence" (as I depicted it), then you are again asking "do you think "existence" has always existed": which is an invalid question. If you are referring semantically to the word "being" in english, then yes it had a beginning. Concepts under the existential reference can be posited as "existing" or "not existing" in reference to in space and at a particular duration of time, but "existence" itself cannot be posited as "existing" or "not existing".

Has that concept of a unicorn always existed? Or does that concept of a unicorn only exist for a certain amount of time (such as while you imagine it)? If the concept of the unicorn did not always exist, does that mean the concept of the unicorn had a beginning?

Yes, any concept under the uniform existential reference can "be" or "not be" in relation to time and space. "not be" is a negation in reference to existence (in space and pertaining to a duration of time), and "be" is an affirmation.

Do human beings exist? Do you think the existence of human beings had a beginning? Or do you think human beings always existed?

What do you mean by "human beings"? If you mean "human being" as in the animal (as taken and thusly analyzed as an object), then they had a beginning of existence (with respect to many, I presume--as in the evolutionary definition would produce a beginning roughly of the first homio sapiens, or a different beginning time with regards to the first multi-cellular life, etc).

As in the subject (which I would specifically hold is reason, which is metaphysical), it is not subjected to the same analysis as the consideration of a "human being's" body (taken as object). But that might derail our conversation quite a bit, so I will leave it there and let you decide what you want to talk about.

Bob

Has that concept of a unicorn always existed? Or does that concept of a unicorn only exist for a certain amount of time (such as while you imagine it)? If the concept of the unicorn did not always exist, does that mean the concept of the unicorn had a beginning?

Yes, any concept under the uniform existential reference can "be" or "not be" in relation to time and space. — Bob Ross

Hi Bob,

Spectacular :) So the way that people such as myself would say it, is "all concepts exist beyond time".

Your answer to the op would be, "existence was always here".

Thank you for sharing!

Spectacular :) So the way that people such as myself would say it, is "all concepts exist beyond time".

I'm interpreting this as an agreement, but refurbishment, of what I said. However, I do not hold that "all concepts exist beyond time".

Your answer to the op would be, "existence was always here".

I don't want to be reiterative, and if you would like to close the discussion that perfectly fine (I am enjoying our conversation, but if you would like to end it that is fine too), but I want to clarify that I do not hold that position. If you would like to explain why you think that I am somehow implicitly arguing for that statement then please feel free: but I explicitly stated I am not in agreement with that proposition.

I look forward to hearing from you,
Bob

Spectacular :) So the way that people such as myself would say it, is "all concepts exist beyond time".

I'm interpreting this as an agreement, but refurbishment, of what I said. However, I do not hold that "all concepts exist beyond time".

Your answer to the op would be, "existence was always here".

I don't want to be reiterative, and if you would like to close the discussion that perfectly fine (I am enjoying our conversation, but if you would like to end it that is fine too), but I want to clarify that I do not hold that position. If you would like to explain why you think that I am somehow implicitly arguing for that statement then please feel free: but I explicitly stated I am not in agreement with that proposition.

I look forward to hearing from you,
Bob — Bob Ross

Hi Bob!

The information that you have provided to the thread, especially re: "the existence of unicorns" has been more than adequate!

The thread shall stay open and it is a pleasure to have you here. Please do feel free to add as much or as little as you would like. :)

-"The predicate of existence: did it come from nothing, something else entirely, God?
What caused existence to be, and why?"

Let me first answer your questions

-"did it come from nothing": - No, we don't have an example of nothing so its more of an idealistic concept. Science shows us that there is a constant cosmic substrate that manifests in our universe through the phenomenon of quantum fluctuations.

-"something else entirely,": -change in the energetic state of cosmic fluctuations.

-"God": Not a philosophical topic....

-"Should we wonder how existence came to be or should we accept what Physicists have offered as an explanation?
-Why do you think that wondering about existence could be done independently from the facts provided by Physics. What kind of "philosophy'' doesn't take facts in to account?


-''I hear that existence came from "nothing":
-That statement depends on what "nothing" means to someone. The truth is that "nothing" is not a state of being, so nothing can not be ...by definition.
Physics provides some indications on what might exist/ed in addition to the material nature of our universe.

-"but I've also heard that it is part of a vast assortment of other universes in a conglomeration known as the "multiverse".
-the idea of cosmos containing many universes (either on a parallel or serial setup array) is the product of our math (string theory) our quantum interpretations (many worlds) and our observations (cosmic quantum fluctuations). This is where our science and philosophical questions start but we can never have answers based on our cultural artifacts (gods). In order to advance our frameworks we will need additional data.

-"Some scientists even postulate that there are "parallel universes" where you and I have other versions of ourselves that have made alternate choices in life, possibly every version of ourselves having been carried out."
-Not a scientific framework though ...All scientists are free to postulate their metaphysical views...but they are not part of our physics.(at least currently).

-"Surely, this would take freewill out of the equation, leaving behind a truly mechanical universe where there simply is no other choice than for there to be other versions of me, but at the same time some strange form of freewill where our choices diverged."
-Freewill is limited or out of the question due to biological mechanisms and reasons, not because of a hypothesized mechanical universe. Different mechanisms of the universe in different scales display different qualities. This is why Reductionism doesn't always works and this is Complexity Science deals with Emergence and Chaos in Nature.

-"What does the "multiverse" live in? Some sort of ultra-meta space that is beyond time and space perhaps?
-The word used is "Cosmos".

-How is it possible that "nothing" can create anything other than "nothing"? Would that not be an oxymoron?"
-Of course it is an oxymoron, we agree. Nothing is not something so that something can come "out of it". Nothing is not a state of being so it can not be. Sure early philosophical attempts to understand the implication of the big bang lead people to include "nothing" in their metaphysics. Religion also tried to promote a powerful creator who created everything ...out of nothing.
The truth is that we don't have an example of "absolute nothing", so probably we are dealing with an absolute simplification of an idealistic concept .

-"Either that, "something was always here" which is sort of a begging of the question. Or that there must be that which is supernatural, which could have created time and space."
-False dichotomy. Something was always here or something was not always here. This is a true dichotomy. Your suggested "second choice" falls in the first category (something was always here).
You are suggesting that "Something was there and it magically made up the stuff for our universe. Then you you add one more quality, that of the "supernatural" and I don't know how you can make that demarcation or demonstration.
After all the supernatural, like nothing, have never been observer or verified so I don't see how one can use them to argue in favor of a creation out of nothing.
In essence you have an unparsimonious "not even wrong" statement that is disconnected from our current epistemology and with serious issues in logic and in its definitions.
None of the claims and qualities used in this "choice" qualify as philosophical in my opinion. This alternative choice fits in a theological forum.

-"Either we have eternal time and space, and endless "begging of the question", an infinite regression of something upon something...or we have a miracle."
-No. In order to make any claim about the time we first need to define time. Time is the phenomenon where processes don't happen all at once and with different rhythms/pace. Since the older process we can observe is the universe, we can not talk about other processes producing their own time.
So based on that definition if our universe is not the only one, time (unrolling processes) can be eternal in the Cosmic stage.
Space(like time) is a property of our Universe emerging from its specific properties. Maybe other universes might have time (since they would be evolving processes) but their properties might not allow physical space to emerge.(who knows!).
What I want to point out is, that "either and or" dichotomies are not the best way to understand the available choices. Errors are common in our attempt to introduce our worldview in the list of choices.
btw miracle is not an answer (like magic).
Calling a mystery (existence) a miracle answers nothing. Coming up with an answer that is constructed to address a question by pointing to magic/mystery/miracle isn't the goal of Philosophy.
Philosophy has to take the available epistemology and wise questions and answers.
None of our theology can be accused for "wisdom" when it comes to their contributions in epistemology, methods of knowledge(science/cosmology), aesthetics ethics or politics.

The question of the origin of existence still persists. It won't go away by ignoring it or accepting it.
It is the crux given unto man. To venture into the external terrain.

The darkness obliges us to fulfill this intellectual endeavor, but I've found that outer space holds no difference from here on earth, nor the inner meditations of man.

Another question remains, how do we figure it out? What tools must be employed to dissect existence?

Will it be just a mathematics that was arisen from the friction of time?

Science shows us that there is a constant cosmic substrate that manifests in our universe through the phenomenon of quantum fluctuations. — Nickolasgaspar

Sounds like a violation of conservation of energy, no?

No, the law of conservation of energy is upheld. A quantum fluctuation is a "potentiality" for something to happen under the influence of some external particle or force.

Well, which one is it? Is it a spontaneous emergence of energy violating law of conservation, or is it just a potentiality?

Where are these quantum fluctuations coming from?

Matter is built on flaky foundations. Physicists have now confirmed that the apparently substantial stuff is actually no more than fluctuations in the quantum vacuum.

The Higgs field creates mass out of the quantum vacuum too...all reality is virtual.

https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=7389&t=energy-creation-from-quantum-fluctuations#:~:text=Cerrito%2C%20CA%2C%20US-,A%3A,some%20external%20particle%20or%20force.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16095-its-confirmed-matter-is-merely-vacuum-fluctuations/#ixzz7PaeuUqOS

So it appears that matter is merely virtual and arises from quantum fluctuations of a quantum vacuum with no violation of conservation of energy. Nice :)

Now we will have to change existence from being matter and energy to it being quantum fluctuations.

The question of existence still remains...

Where do quantum fluctuations in the quantum vacuum come from? :)

If it comes from a potentiality, how is it that quantum potentialities exist without time and space?

If it exists in time and space then we will redefine existence as merely time and space. How does time and space create quantum potentialities?

-"The question of the origin of existence still persists. It won't go away by ignoring it or accepting it.
It is the crux given unto man. To venture into the external terrain."
-Of course it does! It's a classic "Begging the question" fallacy,but since we as organisms constanlty experience processes with a beginning and an end, we also make this unfounded assumption for an abstract concept.

-"The darkness obliges us to fulfill this intellectual endeavor, but I've found that outer space holds no difference from here on earth, nor the inner meditations of man."
- you have investigated the outer space in a degree that you can address concepts as existence?

-"Another question remains, how do we figure it out? What tools must be employed to dissect existence?''
-Tools that can produce objective evidence for our claims.

-"Will it be just a mathematics that was arisen from the friction of time?''
-Math like any tool and language of logic are acceptable to the GIGO effect (Garbage in Garbage out). In order for our reasoning, either through mathematical formulations or Basic Logic etc, to be meaningful and relevant, credible objective facts are needed as a foundation.

-"Well, which one is it? Is it a spontaneous emergence of energy violating law of conservation, or is it just a potentiality?"
-I will suggest to read more about it and why this observation was awarded(Nobel Prize). We can observe those virtual particles affecting particles of our universe. Their emergence is so brief that their energetic footprint isn't summed in our Universe.

-"So it appears that matter is merely virtual and arises from quantum fluctuations of a quantum vacuum with no violation of conservation of energy. Nice"
-Bad philosophical interpretations of facts.

-"Now we will have to change existence from being matter and energy to it being quantum fluctuations."
-Again matter(energy of this universe) is a change of state caused by a cataclysmic event 13.7 billion years ago. No Matter is not "merely virtual", matter is just an other state of the " same" energy.

-"The question of existence still remains...
Where do quantum fluctuations come from? "
Again I am not sure those are good questions or meaningful if existence if the only....... state of being for the cosmos and quantum fluctuations is its default energetic state allowing (now and then) changes and processes to emerge(like our universe) due to its fluctuations.

state of being for the cosmos and quantum fluctuations is its default energetic state — Nickolasgaspar

You are heading the question of the thread in a good direction, that of matching the physics to the philosophy for confirmation.

We note that the candidate for the base existent cannot be composite, for then it couldn't be fundamental since its parts would have to be more fundamental. This suggests that it has to be partless as well as of the least size. The quantum 'vacuum' fits the bill or is close to it. The base existent is therefore unbreakable, unmakeable, and thus eternal.

What’s Fundamental has to be partless,
Permanent, and e’er remain as itself;
Thus, it can only form temporaries
Onward as rearrangements of itself.

The Simplest can’t be made; it has no parts;
Likewise, it can’t break; ne’er ‘Nothing’ starts;
Thus, Necessity, without alternative,
Makes the Big Bang and our transient hearts.

All the temporary complexities
From the Eterne will someday fade away,
Even the universe with its grandness
Will disperse its greatness into blandness.

In between, the Basis sets a story
That gets lived by the mutable within,
As life and all the stars, moons, and planets—
In a book from the Babel Library.

What’s Fundamental has to be partless,
Lest its parts be more-so and it be less;
It’s ever, ne’er still, else naught could happen;
The quantum ‘vacuum’ weaves the universe’s dress.

The elementaries of a type are
The same, being woven by the same weave,
Only at the stable rungs of quanta;
They’re well anchored, but they’re secondary.

Are the fields spooky as non physical?
Since the elementaries are physical,
And because they are outright field quanta,
The quantum fields are purely physical.

Change, change, change… constant change, as fast as it
Can happen—the speed of light being foremost
The speed of causality—o’er 13 billion years now,
From the simple on up to the more complex.

The ‘vacuum’ has to e’er jitter and sing,
This Base Existent forced as something,
Due to the nonexistence of ‘Nothing’;
If it ‘tries’ to be zero, it cannot.

At the indefinite quantum level,
Zero must be fuzzy, not definite;
So it can’t be zero, but has to be
As that which is ever up to something.

(Perhaps more another time…)

You are heading the question of the thread in a good direction, that of matching the physics to the philosophy for confirmation.

We note that the candidate for the base existent cannot be composite, for then it couldn't be fundamental since its parts would have to be more fundamental. This suggests that it has to be partless as well as of the least size. The quantum 'vacuum' fits the bill or is close to it. The base existent is therefore unbreakable, unmakeable, and thus eternal. — PoeticUniverse

-I am not sure of your conclusion. That sounds more of an idealistic belief than a product of observation and objective evaluation of facts.
I mean, humanity since Democritus was obsessed by the idea of finding the A- tomon (unbreakable) but nature constantly reminds us that our wishes are not how things work. We ended up with a quantum Zoo, new forces are suggested and indications of additional layers are surfaced all the time.
So I am not confident of your reasoning since it is in direct conflict with facts.

What’s Fundamental has to be partless,
Permanent, and e’er remain as itself;
Thus, it can only form temporaries
Onward as rearrangements of itself. — PoeticUniverse

-Again I am not sure of your first premise. "Partless" appears to be more of an observer relevant term than an intrinsic feature of the substrate. It appears to be more of a system than one "thing".
With the rest I have no issues.

-I

The Simplest can’t be made; it has no parts;
Likewise, it can’t break; ne’er ‘Nothing’ starts;
Thus, Necessity, without alternative,
Makes the Big Bang and our transient hearts. — PoeticUniverse

-Again "simplest" is a relevant term. Sure particles displaying kinetic properties are far simpler than biological and chemical properties produced by larger structures.....but still there are more than one particle. The same appears to be for the cosmic substrate...and I don't know if it is even reasonable to project our observations or our reasoning to a realm that we have no access.

The quantum ‘vacuum’ weaves the universe’s dress. — PoeticUniverse

-The point is that "vacuum'' might not be the correct term in the case of the cosmos.

Are the fields spooky as non physical?
Since the elementaries are physical,
And because they are outright field quanta,
The quantum fields are purely physical. — PoeticUniverse

- even being a Methodological Naturalist I would avoid the term physical. Physical is more of an emergent property of the energetic substrate so I would prefer the world Natural. Quantum fields display natural properties.

The ‘vacuum’ has to e’er jitter and sing,
This Base Existent forced as something,
Due to the nonexistence of ‘Nothing’;
If it ‘tries’ to be zero, it cannot. — PoeticUniverse

- I generally agree with that. Its the most reasonable conclusion based on the meaning of those concepts and the available facts.
I don't see major disagreements in our positions.

All the temporary complexities
From the Eterne will someday fade away,
Even the universe with its grandness
Will disperse its greatness into blandness. — PoeticUniverse

Very interesting, but many people including myself have a hard time subscribing to a truly entropic universe, especially in light of what appears to be a constant and infinite expansion of the universe by way of dark energy.

"Is recalcitrant" is a predicate: John is recalcitrant. No problemo!

"Is existent" isn't a predicate (Kant): The apple is existent. Problemo!

Kant's argument is that if existence is a predicate, an imagined object x would not be the same as that object (x) if it exists because it would have one additional property viz. existence that would preclude that equality. What this means is that an object I conceive of is no longer identical to that conceived of object existing. I can't, therefore, say of any imagined thing that it exists because they're now different. :chin:

What caused existence to be, and why? — chiknsld

I think this is equivalent to asking "What caused logical possibility (consistency) to be, and why?" Like, why is A identical to A (and not identical to that which is not A)? Logical possibility is a necessary fact. And some years ago I came to this big revelation: there is no difference between logical possibility and existence. Why? Simply because I don't see any difference between the two and I don't even know what that would mean.

Claiming that there is no difference between logical possibility and existence may seem absurd because you may readily point to an object, for example a tree in front of your house, and say "It is surely possible (logically consistent) that that tree over there would not exist, and yet it is there - hence, logical possibility and existence are not the same." To which I would say: "Um, no. It is not possible for that tree not to be there, because it would be a logical contradiction if a tree that is there was not there." It may be logically possible for there to be another world which looks exactly like ours except for that tree, but that would be another world, not this one.

So not only is existence necessary, but everything possible exists necessarily.

What caused existence to be, and why?
— chiknsld

I think this is equivalent to asking "What caused logical possibility (consistency) to be, and why?" Like, why is A identical to A (and not identical to that which is not A)? Logical possibility is a necessary fact. And some years ago I came to this big revelation: there is no difference between logical possibility and existence. Why? Simply because I don't see any difference between the two and I don't even know what that would mean.

Claiming that there is no difference between logical possibility and existence may seem absurd because you may readily point to an object, for example a tree in front of your house, and say "It is surely possible (logically consistent) that that tree over there would not exist, and yet it is there - hence, logical possibility and existence are not the same." To which I would say: "Um, no. It is not possible for that tree not to be there, because it would be a logical contradiction if a tree that is there was not there." It may be logically possible for there to be another world which looks exactly like ours except for that tree, but that would be another world, not this one.

So not only is existence necessary, but everything possible exists necessarily. — litewave

:clap:

That is probably the most sound argument that I've heard for existence! :)

Very interestingly, would this imply a lack of freewill?

Very interestingly, would this apply a lack of freewill? — chiknsld

If free will is possible (logically consistent) then it exists. But how is free will defined? Without definition there is nothing. If free will means that we can do what we want then we obviously have free will, at least to some extent. But even then, our actions would be completely determined by factors over which we have no control, in the sense that they would be determined by our wants and we cannot choose our wants. Or if we could choose our wants, we would need to want to choose the wants, so there would be a regress of wants that would either begin with a want that we wouldn't choose or it would be an infinite regress, which we wouldn't choose either because there would be no beginning to choose.

If free will is possible (logically consistent) then it exists. But how is free will defined? Without definition there is nothing. If free will means that we can do what we want then we obviously have free will, at least to some extent. But even then, our actions would be completely determined by factors over which we have no control, in the sense that they would be determined by our wants and we cannot choose our wants. Or if we could choose our wants, we would need to want to choose the wants, so there would be a regress of wants that would either begin with a want that we wouldn't choose or it would be an infinite regress, which we wouldn't choose either because there would be no beginning to choose. — litewave

Very interesting.

It is not possible for that tree not to be there, because it would be a logical contradiction if a tree that is there was not there. — litewave

So more specifically, using this line of logic, I offer the following example:

I have two options before me, I can choose to eat a white chocolate or I can choose to eat a strawberry chocolate. I choose the strawberry chocolate.

Therefore it was never possible to eat the white chocolate?

Let me give you a more visceral example as well:

Let us pretend that I am a female choosing to mate with my partner and have a baby, or I can decide that I do not want to have children and live a different life instead.

I choose to have a baby. Let's call him John.

Therefore I can tell John that it was never possible that he could not exist?

Clearly I had the option; I could choose to mate and have a baby, but I could also have chosen to not have children and live an entirely different life where John does not exist.

By following your logic, I never actually had a choice, John was going to live no matter what? Hence, no freewill?

Or maybe the more rational route Is that I did have a choice, and at that very point, there were two possibilities, one that John could exist and one that John could not exist. As you say, two different worlds. Once I chose to have John, I entered into the world where there was no other choice than for him to exist?

So it seems, (having worked out the very sound logic that you have given me) there is a world of infinite possibilities, but we have the power to choose which world gets created with every choice we make.

Truly fascinating. :)

I have two options before me, I can choose to eat a white chocolate or I can choose to eat a strawberry chocolate. I choose the strawberry chocolate.

Therefore it was never possible to eat the white chocolate? — chiknsld

Right, I think it never was.

By following your logic, I never actually had a choice, John was going to live no matter what? Hence, no freewill? — chiknsld

Right. But still, you could do what you wanted to do, so in this sense you did a freely willed (wanted/desired) action.

Here is an even more compelling picture of necessity: everything that will happen has already happened, in the sense that every event is a part of a 4-dimensional topological object called spacetime, where time, mathematically/structurally, is just one of the dimensions, a special kind of space. Spacetime itself, with everything inside it, just exists, timelessly, eternally. It exists because it is a logically consistent object, a possible world.

Or maybe the more rational route Is that I did have a choice, and at that very point, there were two possibilities, one that John could exist and one that John could not exist. As you say, two different worlds. Once I chose to have John, I entered into the world where there was no other choice than for him to exist? — chiknsld

If the world in which you have John and the world in which you don't have John were both possible worlds it would mean that both worlds exist. So you would both have and not have John, which would be a contradiction probably under any acceptable definition of "you". Theoretically, to make the situation logically consistent, you could define "you" as a collection of two persons, one of whom has John and the other doesn't, or you could define "you" as an object that is not conscious of being split into two conscious parts which are not conscious of each other and don't interact with each other and with each other's worlds. But who would care about such definitions of "you"?

But it seems possible for there to be two worlds that are the same (copies of each other), you live in one of them and another person who is exactly like you lives in the other, until the point where you mate and conceive John and the other person doesn't. From that point onward, of course, the two worlds would no longer be the same.

Here is an even more compelling picture of necessity: everything that will happen has already happened, in the sense that every event is a part of a 4-dimensional topological object called spacetime, where time, mathematically/structurally, is just one of the dimensions, a special kind of space. Spacetime itself, with everything inside it, just exists, timelessly, eternally. It exists because it is a logically consistent object, a possible world. — litewave

Ah, the never escapable fate. :)

But as I said, without definition there is nothing, so in order for an object to be logically consistent it must have a definition. I don't mean a human declarative definition, just the fact that the object must have certain properties that define it, that make it what it is. A logically consistent object, then, is one that has the properties that it has (and doesn't have properties that it doesn't have), which is the same as saying that the object is identical to itself. But what properties could an object have?

There seems to be a necessary principle of composition, which means that if there are some objects, whatever they are, they automatically make up another object that is a collection or combination of those objects. And this larger object automatically combines with other objects into even larger objects, and so on. So every possible object is either composed of other objects or is a non-composite object. Pure set theory can in principle describe all these objects; non-composite objects are called empty sets and composite objects are non-empty sets that are built up from empty sets. Pure set theory is also a foundational theory for mathematics because it is able to represent all mathematical objects or properties (numbers, spaces, functions, etc.) as pure sets. That's why reality is necessarily mathematical.

But mathematics is just the structural aspect of reality, the relations between sets, or structures of relations. The objects that stand in those relations, the sets "in themselves", are something unstructured, partless (even though they stand in relations to objects that are their parts, that is, to the sets that compose them). The unstructured nature of objects in themselves may be the basis for the qualitative aspect of consciousness (qualia).

There seems to be a necessary principle of composition, which means that if there are some objects, whatever they are, they automatically make up another object that is a collection or combination of those objects. And this larger object automatically combines with other objects into even larger objects, and so on. So every possible object is either composed of other objects or is a non-composite object. Pure set theory can in principle describe all these objects; non-composite objects are called empty sets and composite objects are non-empty sets that are built up from empty sets. Pure set theory is also a foundational theory for mathematics because it is able to represent all mathematical objects or properties (numbers, spaces, functions, etc.) as pure sets. That's why reality is necessarily mathematical. — litewave

Very interesting. :)

But mathematics is just the structural aspect of reality, the relations between sets, or structures of relations. The objects that stand in those relations, the sets "in themselves", are something unstructured, partless (even though they stand in relations to objects that are their parts, that is, to the sets that compose them). The unstructured nature of objects in themselves may be the basis for the qualitative aspect of consciousness (qualia). — litewave

It would certainly be interesting to investigate your hypothesis. You're saying that consciousness is comprised of qualia that which without there would be no consciousness?

You're saying that consciousness is comprised of qualia that which without there would be no consciousness? — chiknsld

Apparently consciousness consists of unstructured "stuffs" or qualities. For example the sensation of red color doesn't seem to be decomposable, although in the ontology where all objects are collections of other objects (or empty collections in the simplest case) even the sensation of red color is a collection that is composed of parts. Yet every collection is also an object in itself that is unstructured/partless and stands in composition relations to its parts. It is an object in itself that is not identical to any of its parts.

It may seem weird to say that a collection of objects is another object in itself. Like, if you have five apples, do you also have a sixth object that is a collection of those five apples? I think you do, although it doesn't seem to be a particularly noteworthy object. But even each apple is a collection of other objects, down to elementary particles like electrons and quarks which seem to be partless but definitely are not because that would mean they are empty sets and empty sets are all the same (which an electron and a quark are not, for example) and it seems impossible for an empty set to have properties like mass, electric charge or spin. Properties of a set are established by the set's structure and an empty set has no structure. So I think that even elementary particles have a structure although it may be physically inaccessible for us, or even physically inaccessible in general if laws of physics prevent the probing of such structure (for example, laws of physics seem to prevent probing of spatial distances smaller than so-called Planck length).

Some people think that collections are just "fictitious" objects and only non-composite objects (empty collections) are "real". That might be a psychological bias toward non-composite objects, caused by the fact that when our attention is splintered onto parts we lose the sense of an object as a whole.

everything possible exists necessarily. — litewave

Possible vs. Actual dichotomy? Unicorns are possible (don't entail a contradiction), but they don't actually exist, do they?

In other words, n(the set of possible worlds) > n(the set of actual worlds).

Possible vs. Actual dichotomy? Unicorns are possible (don't entail a contradiction), but they don't actually exist, do they? — Agent Smith

How do you know that they don't exist? They may exist on a different planet or in a different universe. They may also exist on Earth in the future. But since they don't exist here and now it would be a contradiction if they existed here and now - at a spacetime location where they don't exist.

they don't exist here and now — litewave

:up: Let's keep our conclusions proportionate to the evidence! Proportio Divina

It would be a contradiction for unicorns to exist here and now.

Apparently consciousness consists of unstructured "stuffs" or qualities. For example the sensation of red color doesn't seem to be decomposable, although in the ontology where all objects are collections of other objects (or empty collections in the simplest case) even the sensation of red color is a collection that is composed of parts. Yet every collection is also an object in itself that is unstructured/partless and stands in composition relations to its parts. It is an object in itself that is not identical to any of its parts. — litewave

What do you think the sensation is represented by? Energy perhaps?

It may seem weird to say that a collection of objects is another object in itself. Like, if you have five apples, do you also have a sixth object that is a collection of those five apples? I think you do, although it doesn't seem to be a particularly noteworthy object. — litewave

What is the object made out of? Just energy? It cannot be an object if it doesn't have some sort of physicality or energy. Do you think the brain is responsible for everything? Might there be a soul that is helping out? Something beyond the brain?

But even each apple is a collection of other objects, down to elementary particles like electrons and quarks which seem to be partless but definitely are not because that would mean they are empty sets and empty sets are all the same (which an electron and a quark are not, for example) and it seems impossible for an empty set to have properties like mass, electric charge or spin. — litewave

Ah, I see.

So I think that even elementary particles have a structure although it may be physically inaccessible for us, or even physically inaccessible in general if laws of physics prevent the probing of such structure (for example, laws of physics seem to prevent probing of spatial distances smaller than so-called Planck length). — litewave

I agree, a particle cannot be an example of nothing to something.

Some people think that collections are just "fictitious" objects and only non-composite objects (empty collections) are "real". That might be a psychological bias toward non-composite objects, caused by the fact that when our attention is splintered onto parts we lose the sense of an object as a whole. — litewave

Have you explained the empty sets yet? Assuming there is no bias, what are they referring to as being real (regarding the empty set)?

So I think that even elementary particles have a structure although it may be physically inaccessible for us, or even physically inaccessible in general if laws of physics prevent the probing of such structure (for example, laws of physics seem to prevent probing of spatial distances smaller than so-called Planck length). — litewave

Elementary 'particles' are directly quantum field quanta; there is no further structure. These field lumps of field excitations are conveniently called 'elementary particles', but they are not pinpoints and are spread out; an electron has a volume.

As for consciousness, see http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/19364/1/Physics-Time%20and%20Qualia%20-%20Smolin-Verde-7-24-2021-FINAL.pdf

It would be a contradiction for unicorns to exist here and now. — litewave

Because they don't exist in the here and now?

1. Principle of Plenitude

2. Modal Realism

3. Many Worlds Interpretation

What do you think the sensation is represented by? Energy perhaps? — chiknsld

Apparently, qualities of our consciousness are qualities of spatiotemporal objects with causal relations. Energy in physics is generally defined as the ability of an object to exert a force, so it is a property of all objects that have causal relations.

What is the object made out of? Just energy? It cannot be an object if it doesn't have some sort of physicality or energy. — chiknsld

In general, the quality of an object is just unstructured, monadic "something", "stuff". It is a non-relation that stands in relations to other non-relations. It is not necessary that every object has energy as there are logically consistent objects that have no causal relations; these objects are not a part of a spacetime. They may exist in a space without time or they may not even exist in a space. By the way, as I said, time is just a special kind of space. And a space is a special kind of collection that has a continuity between its parts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topological_space

Do you think the brain is responsible for everything? Might there be a soul that is helping out? Something beyond the brain? — chiknsld

I don't know. I can only say that if it is logically consistent for us to have a soul then we have it.

Have you explained the empty sets yet? Assuming there is no bias, what are they referring to as being real (regarding the empty set)? — chiknsld

As any other set, an empty set too has a quality (an unstructured stuff) that stands in relations to qualities of other sets. But an empty set is a combination of no other sets, so it has no members, no relations to its members.