:up: :100:

Did ↪universeness actually refer to an "information singularity", or is that your interpretation of his intention? — Gnomon

How much credence do you give to the idea that we are heading towards an 'information/technological singularity? — universeness

From the evidence of the above quote, I say universeness actually refers to an information singularity. Do you think I'm misreading the quote?

...your description of a "cognitive explosion of information..."sounds like a creation event... — Gnomon

Were you making a religious statement, or a philosophical conjecture, or merely referring to an empirical scientific fact? — Gnomon

I will describe my statement as an historical conjecture: the information singularity at point of explosion pushes sentience across a threshold whereupon a "quantum leap" upward into a new, higher gestalt of cognition gets underway. This new level of understanding and conceptualizing could be expected to transform the phenomenal universe through the agency of sentients.

I was not postulating existence of a transcendent enformactional entity who causes the phenomenal universe.

Where did you get the idea of an "information big bang" and "cognitive explosion"? I googled those terms and came-up empty. I'm not familiar with such "common big bang language" — Gnomon

I'm guilty of a lack of clarity. "Common big bang language refers to singularity, not information singularity.. The latter term came to me from the above quote of universeness.

I got nothing about an original Big Bang burst of Information or a "cognitive explosion", that resulted in the creation of a physical universe from pre-existing rational causal power-to-enform (LOGOS?). — Gnomon

What you say is part and parcel of your theory of enformaction.

I was only postulating, per the language of universeness, the historical evolution of human consciousness towards a cosmic culmination. Imagine, if you will, a cognitive "explosion" of categorically new concepts and scientific methodology.


Does your enformaction theory, as I've been wondering, have Plato's Theory of (Ideal) Forms as an ancient forebear?

You're doing a Socrates, eh? — Tom Storm

I don't know anything!

...trying to parse what god can and cannot do, or where God resides and in what form is pointless and subject to the paucity of human understanding. If the laws of physics get in the way of a person's understanding God then they're not doing it right... — Tom Storm

I recognize your point of view and, moreover, I respect the facts and conventions that source the content of your query. However, in my dialogue with Metaphysician Undercover, I want to examine his thinking non-judgmentally. My purpose is to hopefully discover some ramifications of his thinking not already known to him. Should this happen, it might present him with an opportunity to delve deeper into his thinking, thereby increasing the chance of it becoming richer and deeper.

An important part of the technique, as I understand it, entails asking basic questions the world thinks already answered. Sometimes, in dialogue, simple questions trigger subtle, lucrative questions. When this happens, thought adventurers like ourselves are off to the races along a new line of inquiry not previously seen. Haven't we seen this in the movies? Folks put their heads together on a tough question. Suddenly, someone asks a simple question in a new context or POV and bingo! The answer pops out of the birthday cake.

This is why non-judgmental interviewing can be useful to the philosophical theoretician, a characterization I apply to Metaphysician Undercover.

You would need to clarify further, what you mean by 'parallels the big bang.' — universeness

Since you refer to an information singularity, a term I know from the common Big Bang language, and since your question about history headed towards a possibly human-directed information singularity strikes me as a question of some considerable importance to you, I thought perhaps you were linking cosmic Big Bang singularity to information "Big Bang" singularity. According to my guess about this, I've been assuming the linkage is metaphorical. In other words, while the cosmic Big Bang singularity is a literal explosion of the universe into existence, the information "Big Bang" is a cognitive explosion of information into some type of existentially new universe.

The intriguing part, according to my speculation, concerns the parallel of matter reaching critical mass just prior to radioactivity with elementary particle formation and likewise information reaching critical mass just prior to gnostic "radioactivity" with elementary knowledge formation.

I suppose I'm really only talking about a renaissance like the one Da Vinci is credited with sparking, except at a universal scale.

It seems to me that an objective truth about all humans is that we seek new information. — universeness

We have altered the Earth in many significant ways. Can we do the same to the solar system and far beyond it? Is that an objective truth about what is fundamental in our nature to do? — universeness

To what extent do you think that human beings are 'information processors?' — universeness

Our ability to memorialise and pass on new knowledge from generation to generation seems to have 'the potential' to affect the 'structure and purpose of the contents of the universe.' — universeness

In the future we will...Act as a single connected intellect and as separate intellects. — universeness

How much credence do you give to the idea that we are heading towards an 'information/technological singularity? — universeness

You are asking about the practical reality of one possible essential attribute of humans: information processors?

Your are asking about the possible primary role of human existence: collection, storage and dissemination of information?

You are asking about humans playing an important part in the transformation of our presently known universe to another, radically different state of being via a dynamic process that parallels the Big Bang?

A cause... cannot be outside of time. — Metaphysician Undercover

So causation implies passing of time.

Since you say,

1. Logic produces the conclusion that there must be a cause prior in time to all material (physical) things. — Metaphysician Undercover

can we assume someone can speak or write a logical statement that necessarily leads to:

the conclusion that there must be a cause prior in time to all material (physical) things. (?) — Metaphysician Undercover

1. (Continued) This cause cannot be material (physical) because it is prior in time to material (physical) things. — Metaphysician Undercover

If we wanted to speak of something prior to time, we would have to use terms other than temporal terms to describe this sort of "priority". We might say "logically prior to" for example. — Metaphysician Undercover

Okay. Regarding the ordering of reality, if something is logically prior to time, then its priority over time is by a standard of measure not temporal?

This cause cannot be material (physical) because it is prior in time to material (physical) things. — Metaphysician Undercover

In the above quote priority is temporal? In the time prior to the physical-material universe, history was nonetheless unfolding, with some events occurring before other events? An example would be whatever event was happening in the immaterial world just before the big event of God causing the existence of the physical-material world?

1. (Continued) Theologians call this "God" — Metaphysician Undercover

So God causing the physical-material universe out of time does not cohere with the axiom: causation cannot occur outside time? Theological God is thus incoherent with causation?

2. If time is the product of physical activity then God must be outside of time. — Metaphysician Undercover

So time is the product of physical activity is a false premise?

3. As an actual cause, it is impossible that God is outside of time. — Metaphysician Undercover

So God exists and acts within time is your main premise?

4. Therefore time as well as God must be prior to material (physical) things, and is not material (physical). — Metaphysician Undercover

God’s existence in time is non-physical whereas human existence in time is physical?

If we wanted to speak of something prior to time, we would have to use terms other than temporal terms to describe this sort of "priority". We might say "logically prior to" for example. — Metaphysician Undercover

Since, by your declaration, logical priority ≠ temporal causality, it seems to follow that a realm of ideal forms exemplifies your statement that:

...we have an inductive principle that there is a cause prior to every material thing. — Metaphysician Undercover

Furthermore, it seems to follow that this realm of ideal forms, being outside time because it timelessly causes material objects to exist, holds possession of a metaphysical identity in the sense that it is beyond both the temporal and the physical.

Can you affirm or deny this interpretation of your meaning?

Furthermore, it seems to follow that this realm, per the above named attributes, empowers God to exist in time whereupon God creates the material universe. Under this construction, God is a physical being. Moreover, God, being physical, exists as a natural part of this physical universe of material things. All of this entails a denial of God as supernatural, a radical departure from establishment theism.

Can you affirm or deny this interpretation of your meaning?

Embedded within your declarations is the mystery of the status of time.

Does the following train of thought reflect your thinking: Since time predates God and God created the material world of physics, time must be something other than physical. — ucarr

No, that's backwards, you need to reverse it. We have the physical world first, as our source of evidence. We see that something preexists each and every material thing as the cause of existence of that thing. — Metaphysician Undercover

Furthermore, you seem to be implying time is physical.

Can you affirm or deny this interpretation of your meaning?

...I can't imagine the possibility of anything uncaused... — Metaphysician Undercover

Does this incline you to think time has a cause?

But I don't know what you mean by saying time is "metaphysical". — Metaphysician Undercover

Does the following train of thought reflect your thinking: Since time predates God and God created the material world of physics, time must be something other than physical.

I would say "God is self-caused" is incoherent because it would mean that God is prior to Himself in time, and that seems to be contradictory. — Metaphysician Undercover

Okay. God is not self-caused. Does God have a cause?

If God is actual, time must predate God, because any act requires time. — Metaphysician Undercover

Okay. Time predates God. And God created the material universe.

So, time before God was metaphysical and there were no material things?

Okay. God can only act within time.

So, outside of time God cannot exist?

Why have you replaced my word, "matter" with "substance"? — Metaphysician Undercover

No important reason. I'm accustomed to form and substance as a set. I perceive form and matter as being interchangeable.

It's true substance has a meaning other than matter. It can mean quality.

Do you think quality has form? More generally, do you think abstractions have form?

Any act requires time to occur. — Metaphysician Undercover

Self-creation of God took time to occur?

that God is prior to time... is inconsistent with the idea of God having actual existence... — Metaphysician Undercover

Time predates God?

Are you perhaps talking about, say, an interaction between two hypercubes? — ucarr

No, definitely not, that kinda stuff is above me pay grade mate, but look at the underlined term in your sentence. — Agent Smith

So far I've gotta wild speculation about what you're suggesting here. Could it be you're suggesting cardinality in 4-space is categorically different from what it is in 3-space? Are we looking at a difference such that hypercubes don't proliferate in the same way cubes proliferate?

:up: You seem to be on the right track given what I know. — Agent Smith

Thank-you. I need your scrutiny. May it continue.

I'm afraid I don't understand where the paradox is in 4D hypercubes. — PhilosophyRunner

There's no paradox in 4D hypercubes, 3D cubes, 2D parallelograms, 1D lines, 0D points.

Paradox appears when, for example, a 3D configuration tries to contain a 4D configuration. Frege did this conceptually when he conceived of the set of all sets not members of themselves.

One of the cruxes of my claim is that paradox appears as a symptom of a border crossing by a higher dimensional configuration into the realm of a lower dimensional configuration.

• Another way to say this is to say a paradox is a higher-order dimensional configuration in collapsed state within a matrix lower than itself.

That such boundaries exist between levels of dimensional configurations is evidence that our universe is metaphysically configured in ascending steps of upwardly dimensional configurations.

Note - Meta, as in metaphysical, doesn't mean immaterial_spiritual. It just means higher-order. For example, a meta-narrative, being higher-order than narrative, contains narrative as a subset plus more. So metaphysics herein means a bigger set that contains physics as a subset.

A very stretched metaphor, at best; not an equivalence. — Banno

The parallelism of metaphor and the identity of math are distinct.

You have an identity. I'm guessing you think you cannot be in two locations simultaneously. It goes beyond a real limitation of our 3D reality. If we imagine an instance when you are in two different locations simultaneously within our 3D reality, that means the unique you -- not your and your twin -- is in Location A and the unique you is in Location B. This simultaneity of unique you in two different locations at once compels us to say: you are in Location A and you are not in Location A; you are in Location B and you are not in Location B. If you and not-you are simultaneous, then you are yourself and not yourself; in this example bi-directionally. This is not parallelism. This is paradoxical identity.

Russell's paradox lead to further developments in logic, not to its demise. — Banno

You're refuting a claim never made.

Striking resemblance to paraconsistent logic I must say. However, wouldn't the analogy work better if we take two things rather than one thing doing weird stuff in spacetime? — Agent Smith

Are you perhaps talking about, say, an interaction between two hypercubes?

You got it! Yes. That's the gist of my argument. — ucarr

:lol: I'm not sure how exactly though. — Agent Smith

If you haven't watched unrestricted axiom of comprehension please humor me and do so. The brilliant Jeffery Kaplan presents a cogent argument declaring that the problem of unrestricted comprehension of sets is ongoing; ZFC has not resolved the problem.

I see how paradoxes can extend logic, contrary to how they were traditionally viewed, as destructive to logic. — Agent Smith

You got it! Yes. That's the gist of my argument. — ucarr

So back to my original question, what are dimensions doing in set theory? What is a dimension here? — Banno

...the set of all sets not members of themselves. — ucarr

This set, as shown by Russell, leads to a paradoxical conclusion such that the set of all sets not members of themselves is simultaneously a member of itself and not a member of itself.

We can take this paradox and cast it into another, equivalent form: being in two places at the same time which means an object is simultaneously itself and not itself.

Since a hypercube, being 4D, has 3D boundaries, it occupies four distant 3D locations, i.e., the same object in four places simultaneously. This type of spatial expansion, i.e., spatial dimension, deals a fatal blow to logical consistency at the level of 3D spatial expansion. At the level of 4D spatial expansion, logical consistency, i.e., one object being in two places at once is natural not fatal.

From these ruminations we see clearly the direct linkage binding logic and spatial dimensions. Conceptually speaking, logic, which is continuity, concerns itself figuratively with dimensional expansion in the form of an expansion of logical inferences.

Physically speaking, the logic that grounds the math that measures spatially extended objects, when confronted with simultaneous occupation of two different locations at the level of 3D, descends into paradox. This is, however, a simple case of dimensional expansion (symbolic and literal) butting up against a boundary. My theory argues that said boundary is not impassable. One need simply realize paradox is a signpost signaling a boundary for set theoretical logic within a specific matrix of dimensional expansion. My concomitant theory that our physical universe is configured in dimensional matrices that progress in steps resolves the impasse with recourse to ascension to a higher-dimensional matrix.

If you haven't watched unrestricted axiom of comprehension please humor me and do so. The brilliant Jeffery Kaplan presents a cogent argument declaring that the problem of unrestricted comprehension of sets is ongoing; ZFC has not resolved the problem.

You got it! Yes. That's the gist of my argument.

Overview – We’re examining the form/substance relationship. The important questions of the role of time, persistence and God are also thrown into the mix.

...what we find is... matter with form... — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. Our empirical experience of reality always finds form and substance interwoven. Do you have any empirical experience of form and substance in separation?

I argue that: form without substance is an unreachable abstraction; substance without form is an unintelligible chaos. This leads to the claim that form and substance are essential attributes of existence.

There is the question “Does language, by naming them separately, artificially separate form and substance?” If this is the case, then probably debating issues that separate them is just an undecidable word game. Each side can make endless arguments for their priority, respectively, thus demonstrating their equivalence WRT priority.

By this line of reasoning, destroy but one wheel and forevermore the wheel can never reappear. — ucarr

Let me make sure we’re not sinking into a type/token confusion here.

In my above quote, I’m talking about destruction of form of wheel as a generality, as a type of form. That means destruction of all possible actualizations of said form. After such a destruction – which I think not possible – no particular, empirically real wheel could ever appear.

Each object, wheel in your example, is unique, with a proper identity all to itself, as indicated by the law of identity — Metaphysician Undercover

Your above quote tells me you’re talking about form of wheel as a token and not as a type.

By materialist principles the concept of "time" is tied to the activities of material things. If material things are moving, time is passing. Therefore under this conception of "time" there is no time without material things. God however, being the creator or cause, of material things, must be prior to material things and is therefore "outside of time" according to this conception of "time". That of course appears to be incoherent, to have something (God) which is prior in time, (as the cause of time), to time itself. — Metaphysician Undercover

In making your argument here, you’re presupposing God is in time and, moreover, that time WRT God is insuperable. You need firstly to establish the logical necessity of this supposition. If you can do this you will then be in position to establish the logical necessity of “God prior to time” being incoherent.

But this just demonstrates that there is a problem with the materialist conception of "time". When "time" is tied to the material existence of things, in that way, the possibility of time which is prior to the occurrence of material things is ruled out. Then the actuality (form) which is necessarily prior to material objects as the cause of their existence, is rendered unintelligible, as "an act" without time is incoherent. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is Platonic idealism. At its center stands Plato’s realm of ideal forms, of which material likenesses within the everyday world are imperfect and transient copies.

Clearly, you think tokens of form can be destroyed, but not the postulated Platonic types from which they’re supposedly derived.

This throws us into examination of the “essence precedes existence” premise.

As a metaphysician, you’re a Platonist, an objective idealist.

So, you think time is metaphysical in the sense of immaterial. Also, you’re a dualist in the sense of immaterial things, forms, being the causes of material objects.

Once God is confined to time, some questions arise: “Did time precede God?” “If time precedes God, doesn’t that imply God has a cause other than God?” “If God and time are co-eternal, doesn’t that imply time was not caused by God, a contradiction of God as creator of all?”

The unrestricted axiom of comprehension in set theory states that to every condition there corresponds a set of things meeting the condition: (∃y) (y={x : Fx}).

For example, the set of all sets—the universal set—would be {x | x = x}.

Central to my argument is: the set of all sets not members of themselves.

...when we talk about material objects we are talking about matter with form, and form is what is created and destroyed. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is interesting and insightful. I don't think I would ever think of it.

form is what is created and destroyed — Metaphysician Undercover

Does form exist without substance (matter)? This would have to be the case if form is destroyed and matter not. However, if this is the case, then a given form, once destroyed, could never reappear at a later time. By this line of reasoning, destroy but one wheel and forevermore the wheel can never reappear. You don't believe this do you?

If form and substance are inseparable, when a material object is smashed up or vaporized, is there any more destruction of one or the other? Is it that, instead, form and substance are really just reconfigured endlessly?

"God is self-caused" is incoherent because it would mean that God is prior to Himself in time, and that seems to be contradictory. — Metaphysician Undercover

Talk to just about any Christian and she will tell you God exists outside of time.

Talk to just about anyone and she'll tell you God, by definition, cannot have a creator other than God. So God, by some means, must be self-created.

self-caused — ucarr

This is synonymous both with 'uncaused to exist' (i.e. eternal) and with 'self-organizing' (e.g. vacuum fluctuations, biological evolution). — 180 Proof

This is helpful. Thank-you.

You can’t refute god, simulation, etc, or anything metaphysical really. — Darkneos

There’s a set of assumptions you have to make about the world, without which you can’t do any thing. — Darkneos

Okay. Metaphysics calls for a special type of assumption: an assumption that resembles an axiom.

Everyday assumptions are refutable: We had been working on the assumption that the murder took place after midnight. When the detectives proved it happened before midnight, our defense of the suspect collapsed.

Unrestricted comprehension within the domain of 3D leads to paradox: inconsistency. Unrestricted comprehension across the duet of 3D_4D leads to expansion of hypercubic space with preservation of consistency. No paradox and no need to rejigger the rule.

While we're talking about it, got any idea what a 4D paradox looks like?

What are dimensions doing in set theory? — Banno

With the above help from jgill, I acknowledge the authority of your point, Banno.

Frege and Russell wanted to reduce math to {first-order logic + set theory} by declaring that numbers-as-numbers are sets: the number 4, for example is a set.

The first rule of set theory: unrestricted comprehension, Russell showed, leads to paradox.

The set-theoretical rule of restricted comprehension, an adjustment configured by Russell and others, aims to return math and set theory to consistency.

Kaplan, in the video for the first link in my OP, argues that mathematicians cannot effect this return to consistency. He shows that the predication of grammatical logic, like the set-theoretical logic of math, ends in the same paradox. He adds that working around it with restricted boundaries declared by fiat does nothing to change this.

The gist of my OP is my argument for recognizing the first-order logical consistency of unrestricted comprehension by utilizing the ascending sequence of dimensional complexes as steps that collectively establish said consistency.

The crux of the steps argument is the premise that paradox is the binder that connects the steps and preserves consistency across them.

If each step is a domain, then the boundary of a given domain is reached when a boundary definition, such as the set of all sets not members of themselves, contains paradox. The paradox tells us we have reached a dimension of higher-order than the scope of the domain and therefore, to preserve consistency, we must expand the collapsed dimension. This expansion moves us up to the next higher domain (step) of dimensional expansion. Within this higher domain, the paradox of the previous domain is resolved by expansion of the previously collapsed dimension. For example: cubic space being in two places at once is paradox whereas hypercubic space being in two places at once is not.

Preserving the consistency of unrestricted comprehension, as you may have noticed, resembles the technique by which calculus makes approximations of negligible imprecision of irrational dimensions such as the area under a curve.

What are dimensions doing in set theory? — :sad: Banno

A set is just a collection of any type of things.

Some claim matter is neither created nor destroyed. How do you go about refuting this? — ucarr

Create or destroy some matter. — 180 Proof

Yes, sir! On it, sir!

I don't think we know enough about reality or the universe to know that all things have causes or even what causality amounts to. — Tom Storm

I agree with you. Reality? Whew! It's one of the important reasons I go to bed every night. "I don't wanna be conscious right now." 'Course I have dreams whilst mind is vacationing. I must say, however, my nightmares are few and far between. Causality: Hitchcock made a fortune blowing fog over it.

...the emotional need for universal narratives that can save humans and make sense of everything constantly overwhelms us. — Tom Storm

Yeah. It's at my throat more often than not. That's why I pay money to the sales-person. Happiness around the next bend for the price of a ticket is just exactly what I wanna hear.

Metaphysical statements are not true or false. They have no truth value. They are the underlying assumptions, Collingwood called them "absolute presuppositions," that underlie our understanding of the nature of reality. They are the foundations of science. — T Clark quoting R. G. Collingwood

Is it your understanding from the above that assumptions_presuppositions cannot be refuted?

Every material object has a cause. — Metaphysician Undercover

Some claim matter is neither created nor destroyed. How do you go about refuting this? For example: do you think caused and created are two different things?

The cause is prior in time to the object. — Metaphysician Undercover

Do you think the {cause ⇒ effect} relationship always implies a temporal sequence? For example:

This immaterial cause is what is known as "God". — Metaphysician Undercover

If someone claims God is self-caused, how would you refute this refutation of {cause ⇒ effect} is always temporal?

Il est facile de voir que ... — Agent Smith

Qu'est-ce qui ne va pas, c'est facile à voir?

Do you believe: vulnerability = vulnerable, soul = souls? — ucarr

Do you believe: vulnerability = vulnerable, soul = souls?
— ucarr
No. — 180 Proof

Do you categorically reject common sense?
No. — 180 Proof

The question: Is there a key that unlocks all doors? — Agent Smith

Are "all doors" actually locked? — 180 Proof

:lol: I dunno but Mr. Anderson, Morpheus, and Trinity are looking for The Keymaker. — Agent Smith

I dunno but Mr. Anderson, Morpheus, and Trinity are looking for The Keymaker. — Agent Smith

Another one of The Architect's macguffins. Remember, Smith: "There is no spoon" (i.e. there is no Matrix). :smirk: — 180 Proof

A chilling wind blew across Manhattan that afternoon as they wheeled Malcolm out of the Audubon strapped atop a stretcher. A delay held up the departure of the ambulance for long minutes as little Chuey inched through the milling crowd up to the great man now supine. “I’m not dead,” he told the pop-eyed boy. Was his smile charming the frigid air? Heck. Only the red film covering his teeth suggested anything amiss. “You believe me, son?” “Ain’t got not beliefs,” snorted Chuey. The eyes of the annointed started slowly closing, a calming peace now spreading across his face. “Best answer. Receive my blessing. Assalamu Alaikum.” Something made Chuey speak. “Wa alaikum assalam.” Loud banging sounds as the stretcher collapsed into the speeding-away ambulance. “Ain’t got no beliefs,” Chuey repeated. And then, “but now I got reason to act like I do.”

I'm indebted to you for letting me query you in-depth. I've benefitted much from the experience. It's been an education for me. I hope we'll dialogue again.

Why do you surround vulnerable and souls with quotation marks? — ucarr

I quoted your words. — 180 Proof

Do you believe: vulnerability = vulnerable, soul = souls?

Common sense.

It's also "common sense" that the Earth is flat and the Sun rises and sets and hammers always fall faster than feathers, etc. — 180 Proof

com·mon sense | ˌkämən ˈsens |
noun
good sense and sound judgment in practical matters: [as modifier] : a common-sense approach | use your common sense.

-- The Apple Dictionary

Do you categorically reject common sense?

pan·psy·chism | panˈsīˌkizəm |
noun
the doctrine or belief that everything material, however small, has an element of individual consciousness.
-- The Apple Dictionary

So you believe paramecia – perhaps the most "vulnerable" life forms – have "souls" too? — ucarr

Yes. — ucarr

Why do you surround vulnerable and soul with quotation marks?

Panpsychism? — 180 Proof

Common sense.

I just don't enjoy being scared. — Ludwig V

Yeah. Likewise for me. However, when friends pressure me into going, I must admit I get entertained (thrilled) and educated. I think the director needs to possess a masterful sense of how far to go. Pushing it way out there is scary_thrilling, then going another step or two affords a transcendent experience that's educational; any further and it transitions from entertainment to suffering, a no-no.

One of the Hannibals, wherein Hopkins has a stir-fry meal at the expense of Liotta, that was transitioning from entertainment to suffering. Hitchcock never made this mistake.

So you believe paramecia – perhaps the most "vulnerable" life forms – have "souls" too? — 180 Proof

Yes.

Soul as defined in the context of my four statements connects to two essential attributes of an innate identity of a self: a) unavoidable; b) invariant

Example: a paramecium, when observed under a microscope, avoids an electrically charged probe that causes it pain. Sensitivity to pain and the ability to suffer, I submit, manifest the baseline identity, i.e., manifest the soul of all sentient beings. Since all sentients suffer pain and seek to evade it, it follows that, WRT sentients, these attributes are: a) unavoidable; b) invariant.

I believe emotional and general language is extremely useful and enriching as long as it does not supersede the physical reality underneath it all. — Philosophim

Okay. Abstract concepts expressed in language can never take the place of the physical reality language describes.

Essences capture feelings that objects do not — Philosophim

Okay. Realism directed at physical objects posits them as mind independent existences whereas essences are phenomenalist abstractions that arise from observance of objects.

The latter can be emotionally gratifying, perhaps giving rise to exultation and a sense of overarching spiritual oneness, but they have no causal impact upon the former.

I'm seeking your thoughts on my four statements. — ucarr

What are those statements (link)? — 180 Proof

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/779178