01-25-22

Atheism & Solipsism – Final

My work entails establishing a connection between atheism & solipsism, plus their two modes: monism & idealism.

My core arguments are simple and familiar.

Here’s the connection between atheism & solipsism

Simple counter-argument to knowing, authoritatively, with certain knowledge, God doesn’t exist.

If I say I am a swimmer, then I can prove what I am, by taking a dip in the pool.

Grammatically speaking, I am a swimmer is a verbal equation. I (subject) + (linking verb) am + (subject complement) a swimmer condenses down to I = a swimmer.

God, by definition, comprehends all existence. This is a well-defined property of God.

According to the unrestricted comprehension principle of set theory, for any sufficiently well-defined property, there is a set of all and only the objects that have that property.

If I say, God is not, then I can prove what I know by revealing to you all existence.

This is the unrestricted comprehension principle in application.

Grammatically speaking, God is not is a verbal equation. God (subject) + (linking verb) is + (subject complement) extant not condenses down to God = extant not or
God ≠ extant.

If I know all existence, a power unique to God, then knowing there is no God means I am God.

If two things comprehend all existence, how can they be different?

Atheistic Idealism – Conceptualization of God as a being who can be denied & refuted.

This is a deep dive into Logos, which is ancient Idealism.

It shouldn’t be surprising to discover that attempts to mark boundaries of the absolute land you in paradox.

Denial of God is marking a boundary of the absolute.

{If you deny God, you become God>Monist}
{If you don’t deny God, you coexist with God>Binary}

Either way, comprehensive God exists & subsumes.

This resembles Russell’s Paradox (a cornerstone of set theory).

Let R = {x | X ∉ X }, then R ∈ R <> R ∉ R

{If it doesn’t belong to the set, then it belongs to the set}
{If it does belong to the set, then it doesn’t belong to the set}

Either way, comprehensive Set exists & subsumes

The switch is between monist/binary.

The switch tells us human cannot catch God in the act of being God. Considering this, of the three positions: theism/atheism/agnosticism, agnosticism becomes previleged.

Not simple are some ramifications of the atheism_solipsism connection.

The upshot of my conclusion is a profile of a distinctly human Deity manifesting as the logical, transcendent sentience of a dynamical world of time_motion, which entails an erratic, sometimes paradoxical morality, always subject to debate & revision.

The existence of God as undecidable*, neither provable nor refutable, continues as a long established stalemate accepted by many on both sides.

*Like infinity, undecidablility covers a spectrum of degrees. I believe atheism is more undecidable than theism.

Strict atheism, however, expresses an extreme position within epistemology.

My simple counter-argument against this position raises few hackles.

My argument has no conflict with atheism as an article of faith.

Even strict atheism is not really my target. Instead, I’m focused on how the counter-argument to strict atheism leads to some useful modifications to establishmentarian theism.

Does atheism belong to a set of ideologies that can be labeled monism?

If so, does the monism of atheism presuppose cosmic solitude, as enforced by its exclusion of a transcendent, teleological sentience i.e., deity?

These two questions follow from an assumption that deity is fundamental otherness, and that otherness is essential to a universe of time & motion.

The exclusion of deity as an article of faith may belong to agnosticism.

The exclusion of deity as a logical conclusion assumes perfected knowledge sufficient to pass judgment on transcendent power.

Perfection is static. It leaves no room for evolution because the highest attainment is accomplished. It leaves nor room for decline because that would negate perfection.

The absolute self, all-knowing & perfected in knowledge eternal suggests a universe without time or motion. Any dynamic process would negate the absolutism of perfection because nothing in a state of change is perfected.

Can such a static universe, the universe of atheism, exist?

If so, then perfection, being static and indivisible, rubs shoulders with Neoplatonism.

If atheism dovetails with Neoplatonism, then we see that atheism replaces The One with The Database (of Perfect Knowledge).

This leads us to surmising that the corrupted world of everyday human experience, our universe of degradation, a devolution down from Plato’s realm of Eternal Things, proliferating with imperfect copies of Eternal Things, harbors a villain.

This villain of the everyday world of human experience is time and its concomitant, motion.

Both Neoplatonism and atheism ask us to assume as fact a static and peerless universe of knowledge that causes our everyday world of phenomena while yet standing apart from its vicissitudes.

The big question raised by The One and also by The Database is point of contact. How do these perfected realms, these ultimate causes, reach humanity within the physical universe of the senses?

The answer is that the conduit connecting the two states of being, static and ultimate causality vis-à-vis the physical universe, is time_motion.

Now we come right up to a pair of germinal concepts: a) the physicalization of morality; b) the moral turpitude of God.

Motion is the limit of epistemology. In a physical universe, motion is essential.

Any static universe of incorruptible causation, such as The One and The Database, by excluding time_motion, forestalls germination of the living.

Dynamical physics and its chief epiphenomenon, sentient life, operate within the womb of time_motion.

These assumptions necessitate the characterization of The One and The Database as extreme versions of both Monism and Idealism. They are paradigmatic constructs of causation, always mirrored imperfectly by the dynamical physics of the world of the living. Within the topsy-turvy world of time_motion and the living, the theist is imperfectly divine, and the atheist is imperfectly secular. Wrong is sometimes, conditionally, good.

If incorruptible causation, an idealism, and time_motion, a realism, always stand apart, then the physicalization of morality and the moral turpitude of God are necessary compromises for the living.

These compromises are the two pillars supporting God-Consciousness, as distinguished from Divine God.

The two spiritual pillars of a universe of time_motion, such as our own physical universe, are Otherness and Transcendence, with the latter being the channel through which the self and the other make contact and communicate.

The One and The Database, in their idealism of incorruptible causation, exclude Otherness and Transcendence, and thus, by the transitive property, also exclude time_motion.

Otherness and Transcendence, innate attributes of the design of a time_motion universe, make time_motion possible.
Motion is the physical manifestation of morality. In a time_motion universe, things can move out of place and become wrong. On the other hand, they can move upward, out of an accustomed place to a higher and better place.

To know there is no focused, teleological, transcendent sentience is to evolve The Database to perfection, wherein motion and morality cease, replaced by the stillness of eternal solitude.

The higher attainment, above eternal solitude, is temporal, evolving sentience that, being animate, can become transcendent.

Yes. Perfection can be topped by imperfection since the former is static whereas the latter is animate.

The Deity of a dynamical, time_motion universe is good because it allows time, motion and evolution to flourish, albeit rife with the imperfections to which Otherness is caretaker.

The universe that bears Deity is thus a topsy-turvy realm wherein being wrong is sometimes, conditionally, good.

Being imperfect, and thus sometimes wrong, allows the presence of love, which, in its essence, means not being alone.

Theism has atheism to thank for pointing the way to perfection of knowledge, an absolute solitude that highlights the value of a morally unstable universe wherein the fellowship of self-and-other i.e., love, thrives upon the morass of its gravitational tendency toward moral failure, all the way down to evil.

Now we have an approach to addressing theism’s hard problem of the presence of evil.

Deity allows the presence of evil because the cosmic richness of the dialogue of self-and-other, love, sometimes gives rise to evil and Deity, looking upon the wealth of sentient beings inhabiting a time_motion universe, allows it as an act of divine love.

Monist excludes Love. Binary includes Love.

God presents a binary contract to human, for the sake of Love.

God-As-Human, binary, seeks Love.

God-As-God, monist, distances Love.

Atheism →→ Solipsism →→ Theism — Agent Smith

Hello fellow traveler, Agent Smith. Looks like we're on the same page re: the atheism_solipsism connection.

Atheism →→ Solipsism →→ Theism — Agent Smith

universeness re: Agent Smith's above quote,

So your logic goes something like:

I do not believe in the existence of any god(s)............> I have no evidence that anything outside of me, exists..............> I do believe in the existence of god(s) — universeness

Where is the paradox? This is merely a 'belief' challenged by solipsism that you posit is strong enough evidence for flipping 'belief in god' from no to yes. That is not a description of a paradox. — universeness

I will post, just below this post, my (lengthy) conclusion derived from the points I've posted here so far.

So, universeness, it being your job to demolish my conclusion, proceed. - ucarr

Bravo, Ciceronianus! When it comes to interpretation of this scene, your arguments are top flight. I now see it's the dilemma that foils Mary Kane's attempt to give Charlie the best life possible. My choice is to risk the threat posed to Charlie by dad, who Mary dominates. I think navigating the hazards of an ill-tempered dad is a better bet than packing a young child off to an utterly foreign world of material wealth without love. Mary thought otherwise and I think in doing so, she undervalued her abilities as a mother (I want to say loving mother, but I don't see it in her.)

This Be The Verse
BY PHILIP LARKIN — Tom Storm

Great poem. Big chunk of my life in a nutshell. My parents made some colossal goofs raising me, but I love 'em anyway.

There's an old word for this "self-love": pride. But it's out of favor by now, it's not politically correct (although things seem to be looking up for it lately.) — baker

I'm inclined to think self-esteem is the foundation out of which pride arises. Individuals afflicted with low self-esteem are not often perceived as being proud.

While pride is a natural and good thing, it's reflective. Love, on the other hand, is transformative. I say it's the jump start of mother's love that seeds the germ of self-esteem that sprouts pride.

If we have robust self-esteem (meaning someone loved us), then we deem ourselves worthy of being loved, by someone else.

I don't think we can get beyond ourselves by means of an internal, reflexive action. Make no mistake about it, love tears you beyond yourself big time.

It's the seminal element of otherness that makes love transformative, but only if the self surrenders to the beyond-self. Theism is surrender to the beyond-self, writ large.

The link I see between solipsism and atheism is this:

In theism, knowledge of "how things really are" is received from others, and, presumably, originates with God. It's a top-down process. Someone else tells you "how things really are", you don't figure it out by yourself.

In atheism, no such higher authority is envisioned or made room for, man is left alone with his senses and his mind and whatever he can achieve with those. He believes it's up to him and him alone to figure things out. This way, atheism implies at least epistemic solipsism. — baker

Excellent exam! Shrewd and instructive explanation. Members of both camps can make good use of this.

With your statement about theism, you make it clear how we little humans are always connected to the world around us. Joni Mitchell informed us about being stardust.

With regards to loving oneself, I've heard it said a newborn dies if another person doesn't pick it up and rock and cuddle and coo away its fear and pain and sudden shock of consciousness. I don't think this hard-wired human interdependence diminishes with age.

It's up to human and human alone to figure things out? I have a theory that says after just a short time in a sensory deprivation tank, human loses all identity, including knowledge of being human. It's the looking glass of other people in society that keeps me on track about who I am and what I'm about.

Didn't Sartre say human is condemned to freedom, thereby suggesting that outside
the social matrix, human is practically nothing at all, thus free. Well, the bold existentialist might reject local norms as inauthentic, declaring the self free to choose otherwise, but that tome he wrote detailing the experience wasn't intended for use as a paperweight.

Charlie pushes Thatcher into the snow, using Rosebud. Father takes a swing at Charlie, but misses. Then--
Father: "Sorry, Mr. Thatcher. What that kid needs is a good thrashing!"
Mother: "Is that what you think, Jim?"
Father: "Yes"
Mother: "That's why he's going to be brought up where you can't get at him." — Ciceronianus

You have shown me how my exam of Mary Kane is flawed, perhaps seriously. I do, however, maintain doubt as to the soundness of her judgment in handing over Charlie to a total stranger whose interest in the affair is that of a banker, not a father.

We don't get the whole story on dad's poke at Charlie. Could be the kid is an insufferable brat who, indeed, needs a thrashing.

Charlie doesn't seem to fear dad; nor does he seem eager to leave his home. Maybe Mank wants to show that before she abandoned him, she spoiled Charlie, whereas dad would have brought him right if not for mother's protection.

I can't preclude the possibility Mary Kane is internally pressurized to relinquish custody of Charlie due to a greedy desire for great wealth.

She towers over dad in power, so that raises a question about him being able to abuse Charlie.

If we deem dad a serious abuser, then I do recognize the dilemma she faces in trying to choose between the two options.

There's no indication the mother is insane in the film. Also, she already had money, and clearly wasn't trading him in to obtain more. Thatcher was a hired man. I thought the scene made it apparent that Charles was being sent away because the mother feared what the father (or step-father, perhaps) would do to him. — Ciceronianus

What do we actually see in the movie?

The boy is happy in childhood. In my view, his frolics in the snow don't bespeak the onslaughts of a pedophillic father, if that's what you're implying.

Suddenly, his mother sends him away, apparently forever, without visitation rights. Such cold mother's milk doesn't put me in mind of mental fitness on the part of Mary Kane.

I see nothing from the father to indicate future trouble for the boy, save the father's anemic defense of the boy's right to remain where he is, comfortably situated within a happy home. It's clear to me this is what the father wants, even as he trembles before the dictatorial mother.

The young man wants to be happy, so he starts spending his large fund of money.

For the rest of the journey, it's just one failure after another to connect humanly, lastingly. Kane's last hope for the warmth of love breaks with the defections of Jedediah and then, finally, Susan Alexander.

The domineering mother is the catalyst and abiding force driving this devastating transformation.

Possessing a handsome sum of money does not imply total lack of greed and lust for more.

think the problem here starts with that love label. It's such an umbrella term. — universeness

One of my incidental goals is the honing down of our emotive umbrella word. Love, love, love. What is this immersive experience that's pulling me out of my normal self with such force?

Does it have some basic, universal properties? Part of our job here is tackling such an imposing totem as love and making it concrete and universal in balance.

My efforts in this goal, so far, tell me that a crux of the experience is rooted in the self/other dynamic.

I've been thinking in terms of a dynamic relationship between two sentient beings. I've been overlooking a relationship between a sentient being and knowledge. I don't know if the latter can erode personal boundaries in the same manner as sentience to sentience.

For example, I can read a book over time and evolve my perception and understanding of what I read. This can be gratifying, but the book doesn't change; only I change.

In the case of sentience-to-sentience, the situation is much more dynamical and knarly. Furthermore, my gut tells me knowledge is a bulwark against the transformations of love; such usage is a selfism favored by intellectuals. We laugh at Georg von Trapp in The Sound of Music as his fortress of knowledge crumbles before the onslaughts of love.

In parallel to the above, the solipsistic narcissist blockades the transformations of love with self-knowledge deified.

How about this formulation:

So solipsism can be seen as a mother or father of atheism. Atheism, consequently, is then the child. — Raymond

Solipsism is the existential framework, the universe that houses the narcissist.

Only by killing the pagan father and the solipsist brother the theist son can, happily undisturbed, rape his pagan solipsist mother to make her truly realize he and God actually exist. — Raymond

You have enlightened me with your reference to Sophocles' Oedipus. Love is our inner savage writ large and insuperable. It's the thing that makes God consciousness necessary for someone like me.

I like to think the God of the Pentateuch forgave King David his murders for being a lusty, loving man, husband and father.

And that's love. Giving away everything your inner rational egotist has acquired. — ucarr

But this view is controverted by experience. The love amongst family and friends is not a zero-sum game. My child will not benefit from demonstrations of sacrifice. The freely given benefits me as well as him. — Paine

Family doesn't appear to me as a zero-sum game. My speculation is that parents don't break even in the bargain, especially not mothers.

A woman marries, agrees to birth a child, gets pregnant and brings forth. (Modern anesthesia obscures the precarious adventure birthing a child formerly entailed across millennia.) She nurtures the child, ultimately releasing it into adulthood. If this isn't self-sacrifice, then I scarcely know the meaning of the word.

My child will not benefit from demonstrations of sacrifice. — Paine

What's the look of parenting without self-sacrifice?

Consider Citizen Kane. Charles Foster Kane, a happy boy playing outside in the snow with Rosebud, his sled, learns that his completely insane mother, trading him in for money, has packed him off to New York under proprietorship of Walter Parks Thatcher, a banker.

This is "parenting" without self-sacrifice.

The central purpose of the story is arguably an examination of what happens to a good, innocent lad when the warmth of nurturing is overthrown by the money concern.

Kane's relatability to other humans, if not his humanity, is destroyed.

Mary Kane is no-sacrifice parenting writ large.

I should perhaps accept resounding defeat and keep silent, but I'm too self-important to shut up just now.

God has a weakness. God doesn't want to be alone. On the flip side, the atheist wants to be alone, revels in cosmic solitude. This is the upshot of knowing, which God is in retreat from, with God's project for the grand mess of humanity.

We're blighting sinners we humans, destined for hellfire by our own merits, but God wants company, so there's an escape clause that lets us stick around for eternity. Now, on that score, we're busily a day working to shred and defy the contract, but this has always been known.

The above is, of course, a feeble narrative attempting to explain why God created human and, while being a feel-good story, doesn't fool many for long. Just so, some of us like to read John Milton, one of the most God-defiant men of the past millennium.

Back to essentials. The trick of my argument is thus: While it's true that the proof of God's existence is forever beyond reach, it's equally true that the not-existence of God is also forever beyond reach, unless one claims to know.

Claiming to know God entails claiming to know the all-powerful, a stretch for human. By the same coin, claiming to know God-not entails claiming to know what is not-all powerful, which entails claiming to know the all-powerful. It's an easy argument to claim both sides are full-of-themselves with their claims.

The trick of execution of theism is knowing, at some level of awareness, that social engagement means throwing oneself into the incomprehensibilities of societies and cultures. The mystery of otherness is a looming presence to the socially engaged. We're on our knees hoping the presence won't erupt into the neighborhood, disrupting norms and making demands. We know it's bound to happen eventually as these eruptions are the big turns of history.

Enter the atheist. This human has a bulwark against the disruptions of God's near approach, with its bush-burning, halo-endowing difficulties: knowledge. Science, with its accurate predictions of things to come, wards off the nasty surprises of creation.

There's a problem. Knowledge is a looking glass by another name. I generate knowledge by asking questions. Well, the source of a given knowledge is a given question, and the source of that question is human. This leads me to asserting that in my quest to know the all powerful, and thus to qualify for denying existence of the all-powerful being, God, I must become the source of all questions.

The upshot of becoming the source of all-questions and thus qualified to deconstruct God, with questions understood to be the looking glass of the mind, says I land myself within the universe of my (solitary) self. And that's no fun.

Living within a binary universe, with a sometimes loving, sometimes menacing God, that's fun.

I... like to think... within the paradigm of an organism rather then the clockwork metaphor of the past. — boagie

For our discussion, I can use organics in place of mechanics. In either case, I'm referring to organized movement of interlocking parts. With the former, it's organized movement of a human fabrication. With the latter, it's organized movement of a natural creation.

With your examination thus far, you've assisted me in my arrival at the notion of non-sentient design. I will try to support this notion with some type of argument because I see its importance to my perception of nature.

At present, I conceptualize design as an automatic process of nature that includes both logical organization and purpose. (Perhaps you can help me see whether this perceptual inclination of mine keeps me tethered to the metaphysical commitment known as theism.)

My key stratagem is to make an argument for logical organization and purpose as inherent and fundamental properties of natural processes of creation, even in the absence of sentience. (Is the uncoupling of inherent, logical organization and purpose from sentience already an established point-of-view of some scientists and philosophers?)

The first expression of natural creation that comes to mind is chemistry. If I can think of earth's history as including an early period pre-dating life forms, then I can argue that natural creation on earth, even in the absence of sentience, proceeded with logical organization rather than with randomness. A key particular of non-sentient logical organization figures to be the distillation of organic chemistry out of a welter of other chemistries. With its appearance, subsequent development of carbon-based life forms indicates not only inclination toward logical organization, but also toward upwardly evolving logical organization.

What about inherent, natural purpose for chemistry?

Is purpose inherent in upward logical organization? Well, let's consider a given level of chemical organization. I will make a proposition declaring that for a given level of chemical organization, said organization has momentum -- has a tendency, if you will -- toward one particular direction of development over and above other possible directions of development. That tendency, I declare, is toward upwardly evolving logical organization.

I think I can make this declaration because the concept of evolution is a popular theory for explaining transition from primitive earth to modern, human-centered earth. Since the concept of evolution holds, as its foundational purpose, explanation of upwardly evolving life forms as based upon upwardly evolving logical organization, then, via reverse reasoning, I can assert an inherent tendency towards evolving life forms existing in its nascent state all the way back to the pre-life period of multi-faceted chemistries.

Embedded within this proposition is a hugely important turning point; evolution from nascent earth to modern, human-centered earth must include a transition from rational automation to reasoning-by-choice.

Lying at the center of this foundational transition is the emergence of sentience. This emergence of sentience marks the birth of reflexive purpose, or will (Entailed along with the birth of will is the birth of morals). Via reverse reasoning, I can assert an inherent tendency towards sentience_purpose_will existing in their nascent state all the way back to the pre-life period of multi-faceted chemistries.

Conclusion - Darwin's theory of evolution can be characterized as a theory of upwardly evolving natural design.

the use of the term design is unfortunate — boagie

There is no reason to assume intellectual intent — boagie

things may behave in a myriad of ways appropriate to their natures, which there context dictates.. — boagie

You present a powerful argument. I must proceed carefully, lest I mis-communicate.

I think I'm seeing a rigorous avoidance of theism on your part. Instead of theism, I think you articulate something like a mechanical process of evolution devoid of the sentience presumably commingled with teleology.

I think my use of design, in your view, carries the baggage of sentience presumably commingled with teleology. If this is so, then I have inadvertently maneuvered us into the familiar Intelligent Design Vs. Evolution debate. This has not been my intention. Also, I have not consciously been propounding theism.

I wish to use design in a way that does not invoke the Intelligent Design Vs. Evolution debate.

Let us suppose, for now, the main tenet of my plan to use design without invoking a deity declares that a mechanical process such as evolution, albeit devoid of the sentience presumably commingled with teleology, nevertheless exemplifies design.

My reason for pressing on with a postulation of non-sentient design is my intention to cogitate upon origins, which is the hard problem of ontology.

Let me assert that non-sentient design is exemplified in the automatic logic of a specifically-configured aggregation of potentialities.

Let me try to unpack this horrid abstraction. Consider a chemical reaction. When hydrogen atoms mix with oxygen atoms and form water, this interaction exemplifies automatic logic. Clearly, you would refer to this chemical interaction as process and, also, as manifestation.

Here the nature of the whole determines the environment which is itself a constitutionally complete entity. It is not this or that, it is in totality an endless process, process ------manifestation, process. Rather then regression, a closed system emploding in on itself? — boagie

With the above you seek to maneuver out of infinite regress by employing the notion of a self-sustaining system that embodies a bounded infinity.

I don't suppose anyone is satisfied with a pre-supposed, self-sustaining, bounded infinity that axiomatically stretches across eternity. By this reasoning, the scientist-philosopher sees no more than that seen by a child looking up at the starry sky.

Let it be noted herein that axioms are one of the gnarly problems of set theory.

Godel has given us a heady clue: no first order math can justify, internally, every true statement it generates. Are bounded infinities self-sufficient?

I am saying, manifestation is consciousness. — boagie

If, as I believe, you're making mind & matter coequals, you're expressing, in your own words, something closely akin to the main thrust of my argument here. Plato prioritizes mind; Sartre prioritizes matter; boagie & ucarr posit them as coequals.

I'm wondering if the coequal position is some kind of monism.

Problem -- Even if we assert manifestation creates itself from out of nothingness, we're still positing nothingness as a pre-existing type of design. In turn, this throws us into a regressive series that looks to be infinite. Liberating the concept from this regression might require thinking beyond three dimensions, a task monstrously difficult.

it goes against my instincts, to think that there is not something before the manifestation of matter — boagie

Is it correct to say you believe the material universe arises from a priori cognitive design?

Do you, like me, understand that such a configuration assumes the existence of a sentient creator who weaves teleological creations?

Do you think intentional creativity, even if effected via evolutionary forces, posits consciousness as an essential whose existence is axiomatic?

Do you put stock in the following phrase? Sentience only from prior sentience

↪ucarr
An existing thing, whether material or conceptual, is a road map to somewhere else.
— ucarr

How about, a thing is a dimensional construction which we create in order to organize and anticipate future events? — Joshs

Your language foregrounds ratiocination to a derived conclusion, whereas my language foregrounds an involuntary response, something like a chemical reaction.

From your language I see a thing that is a complex cognitive construction that encompasses a mental journey via intention. From my language I see an autonomic journey as thing that participates in an ever-branching serial.

Your statement is more at intentional exercise of reason. My statement is more at stream of consciousness, the foundation on top of which reason operates.

As soon as we posit intentional creation of a thing, we're inhabiting the mind-space. Some argue this is epiphenomenal, thus lacking the causal power of existence.

I see now that I want to simplify my proposition; Material things are road maps to somewhere else.

Does the pencil as writing instrument have at least one existential attribute in common with the pencil as rocket?
— ucarr

Do you mean, do they both exist?

I don’t think ‘as’ confers or conjures existence. You can use a rock as a hammer, but you don’t thereby bring into existence the-rock-as-hammer alongside the rock itself, do you?

Or going the other way, in abstracting, you can look at a basketball as a toy, as a shape, as a souvenir, as a commercial product, and so on. Those are ways in which the basketball can be seen, but it’s the basketball being seen in this specific light, the basketball that is the thing here, and how it is viewed is not another and separate thing.

Or is none of this what you meant by ‘existential attribute’? — Srap Tasmaner

Your enquiry is spotlighting issues that raise questions that impel us toward intriguing considerations of subtle distinctions between ways of existing.

The intention of my question is to focus on whether a common, general attribute-of-existence can be distilled from a comparison of pencil-as-writing-instrument and pencil-as-imaginary-rocket. I figure the more disparate the two things compared, given that a common, general-attribute-of-existence can be distilled, the more generally we have identified general existence.

I have long suspected as, in its prepositional mode, functions as a philosophically rich grammatical form.

If I can make bold and conclude Heidegger, in saying, human is a being for whom being is an issue, means (along with other things) human cannot live without narratives, then I will also dare to speculate that for human, the statement x as y is a serious claim, which is to say, within the narrative, metaphor (and simile) is necessary, not optional.

This leads me to saying that human, with its big brain, cannot live locally, which is to say x as y statements are, for human, truth statements. Furthermore, I speculate human, by force of the necessary status of x as y statements, gets drawn toward this very thread overall (and others like it), which tries to comprehensively grasp existence in its phosphorescent super-abundance.

Let me truck out a notion now rolling around in my head for years.

An existing thing, whether material or conceptual, is a road map to somewhere else. Perhaps the thingliness and even the hereness & whereness of things are not primary to existence. Instead, perhaps how a thing spins out, as if by centrifugal force, its observer to another destination is what is primary about existence. All this is to say that what our senses perceive of existence might be secondary to how a particular thing spins out its observer onto another en route to (whatever).

As I recall, Aristotle said being is the means by which all beings are revealed as it remains unrevealed..

These speculations lead me to assert, being is transcendental to all beings.

This might mean then, regarding pencil-as-imaginary-rocket, while we don't want to cease discerning hallucinations as such when they occur, we do want to push things to the point where we find ourselves within the feathering-boundaries of identity statements as truth statements.

What say you to approaching general existence as existential incandescense?

Pretending a pencil is a rocket is pretending something is a rocket... — Srap Tasmaner

Does the pencil as writing instrument have at least one existential attribute in common with the pencil as rocket?

This pencil is not a rocket. — Srap Tasmaner

Question -- Since your example sentence provides (1) subject (pencil), (1) complement (rocket) and (1) verb (to be), when you write

Two predicates there and some existence. — Srap Tasmaner

am I failing to understand your intentions? Please clarify. :smile:

I'm not denying Sartre's claim that existence precedes essence. Instead, I'm situating it within a larger complex than the one he assumes. Viewing our world through the lens of QM impacts deeply our conceptions of boundary lines.

We don't experience waves or potentiality. We experience actuality and particles. Waves are what we call that we can't experience — Gregory

Regarding experience -- I think one functional picture of experience is that we persist in time as a kind of macro-sized distribution across said time. Although I may be stretching the definition outrageously, I dare say this distribution approximates what might be called human experience of time passing as human experience of waves. We can make closer approach to this phenomenon by noting the elusive nature of the now. Might it be a probablistic wave-distribution across the interface of past-present-future, an asymptotical manifestation of the elusive now?

Regarding potentiality -- In my struggles to conceptualize energy, I'm presently positioned at the following definition -- energy -- the ability to move. As such, energy is potential motion. This, i.e., potentiality-as-energy, certainly we experience daily.

Regarding actuality -- How this should be defined (as pertains to human) is what is in play here in this discussion. Traditionally, actuality is set in contrast to intentionality. In other words, the question is whether what we see before us in fact conforms to the idea conceived in our heads.

Now, the elaborate intentionality of the human mind, vis-a-vis material human is the very relationship about which, in my opinion, QM has something important to say. I think QM allows us to speculate about humans being, like wave-particle duals, non-local (see human experience of passing time above).

Digression -- Could it be that human non-locality contains a clue about the way humans might time-travel? I'm speculating about a probability dislocation in time that moves us around temporally. Such travel would, however, be dangerous, as liquefaction of time might prove hopelessly confusing. Moreover, the time traveler, in the mode of an oscillating blur, might prove hard to relate to. And still more moreover, contact with time traveler might throw another person into a non-linear time progression, also hopelessly confusing. Dissolving the rigidity of here-and-nowness is not something to undertake lightly.

Regarding particles -- recently I resolved for myself the following, the signature of a material object is its mass. Now, as I'm speculating, mass is the everyday experience of particle-wave duality. I say this because of the following question. Where, in everyday reality, is the mass of a physical thing located? It's in the transition of a material object into and out of a state of rest. If true, then particles, although they seem to be discrete, are really, in actuality, no more rigid than waves.

Are you also telling me the PNC is a relic of the pre-QM past?
I'm only pointing out that your OP commits a performative contradiction rendering its conclusion nonsensical. I provided a link in my previous post which explains that the superposition principle predates QM (& "Schrödinger's Cat" gendankenexperiment) by nearly two centuries. — 180 Proof

Is my OP (Operating Premise?) nonsensical within the context of Three-valued logic?

The equations of e.g. linear algebra and functional analysis used for describing phenomena in superposition are founded on symbolic logic with axioms such as the LNC (i.e. bivalence) and therefore any claim that 'symbolic logic is refuted or invalidated by the very mathematical formalisms which are founded on symbolic logic' refutes itself with a performative contradiction (i.e. you saw-off the branch on which you're sitting). — 180 Proof

Perhaps you've done me a service by enlightening some of my ignorance & error or, on the contrary, by validating my validity by spotlighting the performative self-refutation of my claim.

After all, my point, as you know, is that one particle being in two places at once is performative self-refutation. Nonetheless, the particle occupies two places at once i.e., "I'm here_I'm not here." "I'm there_I'm not there." Henceforth, it's smooth sailing to "I'm sitting suspended on this branch I just sawed through."

I'm supposing that the quantum computing code writers (Google employees?) are making bank with performative self-refutations that threaten to slice through pre-QM computing encryption standards.

I provided a link in my previous post which explains that the superposition principle predates QM (& "Schrödinger's Cat" gendankenexperiment) by nearly two centuries. — 180 Proof

Perhaps the heart of our kerfuffle is the age of your superposition data. My perusal of the link suggests (to my math ignorance) a discrete parsing of bi-valence, with simple additive and subtractive effects. These are the very things QM perplexes.

You have helped me with the info re: Three-valued logic and, for that, I thank you.

P.S. I'm wondering what our jurists do when a defense lawyer takes recourse to Three-valued logic, considering our system of jurisprudence and its reliance upon self-contradiction as proof of invalidity.

Are you telling me logicians have no conceptual bone to pick with paradoxicality or, if you prefer, undecidability?* Are you also telling me the PNC is a relic of the pre-QM past?

*By the way, I seems to me, at least at first glance, these terms are NOT bi-valence but, rather, the conflation of bivalence.

P.S. - My math is terrible so, demolish away.

Your comments here are packed with astute observations.

Minds digitize an analog world to create the meat of thought. Objects of the mind are the result. I believe that the world is process, relationships, or information, not physical. — Harry Hindu

I'm drawn to the notion that physics boils down to manipulated information, however, our so-called physical world, real or not, constantly demands attention. Ask any highway patrol-person, s/he'll tell you horror stories about the costs of inattention within our sham-physical world.

The idea that physical objects exist is the result of this digitization of the world into discrete forms in space-time. — Harry Hindu

Since you're invested in an information-based reality, it surprises me to learn you think binary cogitation leads to discrete forms in space-time. As we the people of the earth descend ever more deeply into virtual reality, the hard boundaries of material objects continue to melt away. Don't they?

Turning your thoughts back on themselves in like the camera looking back at the monitor it is connected to. It creates a feedback loop - an infinite corridor - one akin to the void one peers into when running away with the thought of thinking about one's thoughts. — Harry Hindu

Wait a minute! You, Harry Hindu, a person who weighs in on a thread concerning the essence of human, make an ingenious metaphor mocking human reflections within the mirrors of thought?! This, after asserting an information-based reality? Your metaphor suggests a position of anti-reflection.

Well now, my friend, you won't likely in future convince me you're not intimate with some of the paradoxes of the human condition. Look at yourself.

Well, for starters, how about, wherever there’s being, there’s sentience, and vice-versa?
— ucarr
How do you know this? — Harry Hindu

This is the gist of my argument. Boiled down to its core -- the lotus blossom in my garden -- it asserts that perception and its referent (an event that shapes the perception) are super-positioned into a seamless and undecidable duality. For my source, I cite one of the cornerstones of QM Physics -- the quantum-mechanical property of being regardable as both a wave and a particle.

Each human enters the world as an instant immortal , having always existed, and being always to exist. This is the innate POV of all sentience.
— ucarr
This makes no sense. If a human enters the world, then the world preceded the human entering it, and didn't always exist unless there is somewhere else other than the world from which they came that does always exist. Sounds like the typical philosophical misuse of words in an effort to awe others with their world salad. — Harry Hindu

Please oblige me by sharing your first-hand account of your parents' courtship and conception of you. Next, please share your first-hand account of your death and burial. Mind you, you first account will be a retelling of what you witnessed, first-hand, before you were born. Your second account will be a retelling of what you witnessed, first-hand, after you died.

Sentience is the primary essence of the material universe, as consciousness is the greatest of all creations. It is an essence adorned with laurel.
— ucarr
Sentience is a view and a view is simply an arrangement of information - of information about states of the world relative to the state of your body. In other words, sentience is simply an arrangement of relative essences, like the temperature of your body relative to the temperature of the air around you. When we speak of existence, we're really talking about the existence of essences. If not, then what else could you be referring to when you use the word, "existence"? — Harry Hindu

This is the hard one. You seem to be saying sentience is simply a point-of-view (hereafter, POV) on various arrangements of sensory and conceptual data. Let us now take our hats off to David Chalmers for his short paper on Yeah. Science examines arrangements of data via individual scientists conducting said investigations. World libraries are overflowing with such data. You and I are not science. We might be scientists, but we aren't science. You and I never experience neutral collections of data because there's something that it's like to be Harry, or to be Uriah that shapes our view of collections of data into a personal experience of said collections. There are no generic human individuals. It is this personal POV that shapes data ingestion into a self perceiving it. The personal, perceiving self, so far, has been left out of scientific descriptions of sentience. When you get personal, which is the condition of every iteration of real-world sentience, you're now talking about the POV on the POV.

My examination of Sartre's Existentialism (Existence Precedes Essence) herein is limited to the structural. First things first. I want to super-position Sartre's Existentialism & Plato's Theory of Forms because my gut tells me scientific examination of the POV on the POV requires a whangdoodle game-changer, namely, QM's embrace of paradoxicality.

By the way, you're right regarding my claim for the innate immortality of sentience when you say, This makes no sense.. It makes no sense, that is, as long as you keep your mind bound to that foundational, scientific article of faith: The Principle of Non-Contradiction. If you'll start to allow yourself to believe that (y)our sentience, by its nature, is a perplexed duality, you might one day rejoice in the paradoxicality of that sublime, bounded infinity, your life.

Yeah. It should be understood that Locke's Tabula Rasa comes with a limitations and conditions clause.

Back in 1945, when Sartre uttered his existentialist credo, in my opinion he was tapping into QM.
— ucarr
And on what was - is - your opinion based? More opinion? Or something - anything - of any substance? — tim wood

I like to believe my opinion is based upon some observed phenomena established by repeated experimental observations performed by various researchers within the QM community.

Here's the key phenomenon, observed and examined repeatedly throughout the 20th century and ongoing: superposition. My basic conception is that Sartre, with his Existentialism, has argued for the matching bookend to Plato's (Socrates) Theory of Forms. The trick involved is that there's no necessary debate over one or the other being right, as suggested by the Principle of Non-Contradiction, as QM has (with conditions) toppled that principle.

By asserting super-position into my analysis, I'm declaring that Plato (Socrates) and Sartre are both correct in their observations, with Niels Bohr, et al putting a bow onto the matched set via QM.

Hello T Clark,
Big thank-you for your energetic & detailed response.

I am always skeptical of mixing quantum mechanics, science, with metaphysics. To me it looks like the similarities are metaphorical rather than literal. That's why I disliked "The Tao of Physics." Being would be unapproachable even if reality were classical.

Yeah. My approach to science (unfortunately) is through the lens of philosophy, whereas, it should be the other way around. When it comes to QM, I'm strictly a lay person & a novice. A legitimate science person can probably hammer my QM interpretations. Even so, without them, I haven't got a leg to stand on. Also, I like the scientific project in general because it impels practitioners to go chasing after difficult questions most people trash.

Hello to TheMadFool (great user name),
Your profile nails me. Yes. When it comes to cognition, high-speed, low-res feedback looping is my thing. I'm an intuitive. When I start getting too impulsive, I listen to music, which calms me.

Hello to Hermeticus,

The only option for us is subjective existence. There may or may not be an objective reality - but we may never know the details because we're bound to subjectivity.

This expresses for me, in a nutshell, the reasons for my (deepening) dalliance with existentialism.

I might be wrong in all my judgments, but nonetheless I'm treating them as necessary fictions that guide me forward.

I like to think Bob Mitchum, with many more degrees of cool, might say something like this to Jane Greer.

To My Fellow Travelers,
Being a glutton for attention, I want to lavish thanks upon you for your time & attention to my ruminations.

Shout out to Xtrix for starting this expansive thread. Your detailed consideration of being gives me much to think about in the coming days.

Looks like I'll be paying additional visits to that neologizing esoteric, the ever fearsome Heidegger.

1. What is the difference between a sweet, juicy, red apple and a sweet, juicy red apple that exists? The difference between a red apple and a green apple, or a sweet apple and a sour apple, is pretty clear. But explaining clearly what is added to an apple by existing...?

Great question, Banno. My tentative response has me taking recourse to that rascal, Jean-Jacques Rousseau. I'm supposing that when we claim something exists, we're withdrawing credit from the Bank of The Social Contract. Dubious though they be, socially sanctioned claims of an independent, objectively existing reality are needed (by most of us) in order to secure a functional society. Consensus about what's really "out there" is a necessary (if fictional) binding agent for social organization and culture

Some additional thoughts,

To abstract and to generalize are closely related. To abstract means to take the general form of something out of its local context wherein it's a specific thing with distinguishing features that make it concrete. In its general form, the abstracted thing fits into a multitude of generally similar contexts.

Perhaps the most accurate way to distinguish to abstract from to generalize is to declare that the first action is a cause whereas the second action is an effect.

Perhaps here, within this examination, it's better to oppose to abstract with to multiply. With multiplication you can talk about taking a concrete thing and increasing its numbers without abstracting it from its concrete, distinguishing features. Even here, however, to multiply the numbers of a thing is to both abstract and generalize a concrete thing into generic members of a set.

Hello T Clark,

Thanks for the welcome to TPF and, also, thanks for taking the time to respond to my post.

I sense that your distinction between abstraction and generalization is sound, and perhaps you can elaborate on their differences a bit more.

Right now I'm wondering if perhaps there's some overlapping between the two concepts. My current thinking is that if one opaque bottle tests good, then the chemist makes an induction to the belief all opaque bottles shall test good. This is the generalization part.

Believing he's made a sound induction, the chemist feels ready to advance to the robust evaluation you write about and then, lastly, advise the producer to roll out a batch of product in opaque bottles. It is in the last part involving the advice where abstractionism comes in as it is a mental picture that guides the chemist in the absence of hands-on empirical testing at the full volume of commercial production.