Looks like you see numbers as I do.

What is a number without a material referent?

It's just another material thing, but unlocateable.

Number = position. Only material things can have position.

What is counting without a world of material referents?

It's just a series of neural networks oscillating.

In a world without spacetime, do numbers have any meaning?

No. They're only graspable by an intelligence capable of counting. — Wayfarer

What does an intelligence grasp when it counts?

I say an intelligence grasps a material thing, as when it counts a line of stones, en route to understanding numbers & counting.

Even a written number symbol, let's say, ink on paper, exists as a physical thing as, in our example, ink on paper.

Are you saying the positional grid, a material thing, possesses the property of number?

Can someone please explain the OP to me ? — Hello Human

You pick up a rock & it weighs 1 pound.

You pick up another rock & it weighs 4 ounces.

The second rock weighs only 25% of what the first rock weighs. Holding each rock feels different because of their different weights.

Rock 1 pulls down on your left arm harder than Rock 2 pulls down on your right arm.

Weight, as you know, is a physical property of each rock. The weight of each rock gives you an impression of the identity of each rock.

I'm saying that another way to get an impression of the identity of the two rocks is by putting them into a line with other rocks & then counting up the total number of rocks.

Instead of the weight of the two rocks being experienced by you by holding them & feeling how hard they pull down on your arm, the number of the two rocks is being experienced by you by putting them into a line of other rocks & experiencing how the counting of the line of rocks changes after adding the two rocks.

With this idea, I'm just repeating to you things you already know.

What is slightly different here is how I'm asking you to look at what you already know.

Instead of looking at a number as a thing way over there, while a rock as another thing way over here, I'm asking you to look at a rock as being a physical number made of material we call granite or agate or diamond or (you fill the blank).

Hello Michael,

Sidebar - Is it true that OED = Oxford English Dictionary? Just want to get that clarified.

Herein we're both working with some pretty tough concepts. I'd like us to agree about what you & I mean, respectively.

Epiphenomenalism, I'm sorry to say, is nonsense. You don't get Consciousnesses except through Evolution in a Material Environment. — Michael Sol

Wait a minute. In your second sentence above, you give a causal description of consciousness that aligns closely with what I understand to be epiphenomenalism.

Here's a quote from my Apple dictionary,

Epiphenomenalism is a position on the mind–body problem which holds that physical and biochemical events within the human body (sense organs, neural impulses, and muscle contractions, for example) are causal with respect to mental events (thought, consciousness, and cognition). According to this view, subjective mental events are completely dependent for their existence on corresponding physical and biochemical events within the human body yet themselves have no causal efficacy on physical events.

If you're refuting instead of confirming the above definition, then you're handing my solipsism claim to me on a silver platter.

Immaterial mind's lack of causal effect is what separates it out from matter. It's immaterial because it's non-causal.

If epiphenomenalism, as defined above, is nonsense, then there is no separation-distintion between brain & mind, and thus the mental self is one with matter, and thus your matter is all proposition is all inclusive, making the material self the only thing extant within our universe.

Like it or not, you are wholly material until you show some axiomatic need or empirical proof that there is something that is not material, which you cannot do. — Michael Sol

Here, again, you argue in favor of my solipsism proposition. If I am wholly material, then my mind is material, so the material mind is part of the only thing that exists, matter.

Note - The existence of other material minds, with whom you interact socially, has, per your view, no bearing on our cosmic solitude, as the categorical material self is the only extant self.

I differ from you in that I believe, by choice, that, in addition to the categorical immaterial self, there is also a transcendent immaterial cosmic self. The gist of my journey through existence is that it is an interpersonal dualism of self & cosmic other, whereas the gist of your journey through existence is that it is a solipsistic monism of categorical material self.

Philosophy sure does truck with reductive materialism.

But I am epiphenominal!

Scratch matter & you disappear right along with it.

I am a distinct self, nearly, but not entirely material.

Saved by an adverb!

Assuming we posit that flights of fancy, via the human imagination, occur within nature as described above, what is the ontological status of flights of fancy? — ucarr

Note - This isn't a question concerning specific content of a particular flight of fancy. It is a question about the phenomenon of flight of fancy that departs from reason, eventually making claims that have no empirical verification. Since this phenomenon is an existing thing occurring in nature, examination of its ontology promises illumination of important attributes of reality. – ucarr

They are abstractions merely subsisting (Meinong). — 180 Proof

As for "the ontology status of flights of fancy", click on the link I'd provided "(Meinong)" to an article about "ontological status" and you won't find anything said or implied (by me) about "the content". I have answered both questions clearly, just maybe not with answers you'd expected (or over your head). – 180 Proof

You haven't answered my question. I'm not asking about the content of flights of fancy. I'm asking about the phenomenon of humans engaging in flights of fancy. To a large extent, this is a question about the psychology of a certain type of behavior, namely, flights of fancy. – ucarr

With the above, I’m trying to make a distinction between a mental construction e.g. “fancy,” and its materialistically real substrate “cognitive behavior (that generates the fancy).”

Let’s examine your quotation of the plural pronoun “They.” What is the antecedent of “They”? (Human) behavior isn’t a good candidate because its number is singular, not plural. Also, behavior isn’t an abstraction. It’s objectively real. Regarding “flights of fancy,” that has a plural number. Also, flights of fancy are mental constructions that can be construed as abstractions.

Your communication by citation appears to be a characterization of “flights of fancy,” not the behavior that supports it, a material reality.

As you say, to my question, as stated, it is a clear answer, to wit: They are abstractions merely subsisting (Meinong). — 180 Proof. Your citation is a meditation on the ontological status of the content of flights of fancy.

It is not an answer to my question as intended. I failed to state the question such that it makes a clear distinction between objects of fancy & the real behavior that causes them. I’m concerned with the latter, not the former.

The answer to my intended question, it turns out, is simple. The ontological status of the human cognitive behavior that gives rise to such things as square circles is that of a physical-material reality objectively verifiable.

And I am convinced, as per Darwin, that Consciousness infallibly denotes an objectively extant Material Universe, so I can hardly a Solipsist, can I? — Michael Sol

Are you claiming that consciousness is an emergent property of matter?

If your answer to the above question is "yes," then, regarding your identity as a self who is an attribute of the material ground, consider,

I believe that the Material Universe (as described by the Standard Model Of Cosmology see Cole and Ellis' Theoretical Cosmology) is all that exists — Michael Sol

If the Fundamental condition of any possible form of Reality is Matter.. — Michael Sol

So, you believe matter is all.

So, as an attribute of the one & only thing that is real, matter, and thus being nearly as one with same, how can you be anything other than a solipsist?

Why have multitudes embraced the Christian miracles, whereas myriad other miracle stories have been dismissed?

I'm not implying popularity equals verification; it doesn't. As you are well aware, multitudes believe in debunked falsehoods, as by your your estimation Christianity.

I'm thinking of the job of the philosopher. Isn't it to explain why one particular set of myths has staying power across two millennia? Maybe it's more the job of the psychologist, eh?

At any rate, something's going on with Christianity. Why are multitudes such fools for Christianity? Is the good book a supreme example of successful promotion?

Why haven't clever operators seized upon this example of selling myth with shelf life of more than 2000 years?

Don't say it! You think televangelists are doing just that.

Why do televangelists fall like bowling pins, whereas Jesus and other divines keep surviving? You can count their names on one hand.

You say Aristotle predates Jesus, and he's still going.

Well, scholars have worked across 24 centuries to promote Aristotle, and there's talk Jesus was one of his students.

Some of the Pharisees were contemporaneous naysayers of Jesus, and Judaism rejects his Godhead, but Jesus was a faithful Jew.

These antiquities are a philosophy perennial.

Your points here are good and I acknowledge their cogency.

I'm just saying that motivation counts for something. Of course all types of people from all manner of belief systems deny human Godhead, miracles & redemption.

The work of promoting same entails nothing supernatural.

Why hasn't this vast array of good news deniers done the work of creating & promoting a venerable book of denial, dating from the time of Jesus, or have they? Perhaps you think the history of science is a kind of bible of rational denial.

Do the naysayers of the Jesus Godhead have any contemporaneous accounts denying the alleged miracles?

I guess those supporting the allegations have worked harder to promote the miracles than those denying them.

I work from the assumption some contemporaries of Jesus were deniers. Where is their 2000 year effort to sustain a narrative of no miracles?

Pandeism- nature is a large scale mechanism operational within specifiable, obdurate boundaries. Its productions & their consequences are verifiable by means of evidence examined through the lens of materialist-physicalist premises. Philosophy of nature is propounded by exercise of reason as expressed in logical arguments supported by pertinent evidence.

What is your response to the following characterization of Pandeism? — ucarr

It's perfunctory and insufficiently speculative (re: by contrast e.g. ↪180 Proof). — 180 Proof

I understand your use of perfunctory. You think my characterization is superficial. Regarding insufficiently speculative, I don't understand. Speculative - engaged in conjecture rather than knowledge. Given this definition of speculative, saying my characterization is insufficient, you're saying it needs to be more conjectural. Isn't this backwards? Did you mean to say, excessively speculative?

Assuming we posit that flights of fancy, via the human imagination, occur within nature as described above, what is the the ontological status of flights of fancy? — ucarr

They are abstractions merely subsisting (Meinong). — 180 Proof

You haven't answered my question. I'm not asking about the content of flights of fancy. I'm asking about the phenomenon of humans engaging in flights of fancy. To a large extent, this is a question about the psychology of a certain type of behavior, namely, flights of fancy. The question is neither idle nor digressive because, in our context, we're examining human understanding of the general nature of existence & reality. Speaking epistemologically, human imagination & the Christian doctrine of faith are first cousins. I don't think science expels imagination from the scientific method. Do you think it does?

0. Deity (Boltzmann brain?) ...

1. Deity becomes – fluctuates until symmetry breaks – not-Deity aka "planck universe".

That symmetry breaks is axiomatic, without addressing question of cause & the problem of its temporality (cause, by definition, implies temporality)?

Planck universe = smallest possible quantum of material existence? Is this how the physicalist avoids the objective-idealist notion of a "point?"

2. "Non-planck universe" begins maximum degrees temperature and rapidly – explosively ("Big Bang") – expands as it cools off.

Advent of asymmetry + expansion, being embraced axiomatically, suggests imaginative speculation, not deduction from experimentally verified laws. This is a big deal since the transformation of the planck quantum as described leads to the general existence we call reality. Conclusion - Science can afford to expel neither time nor imagination.

3. Cosmic + thermodynamic entropy. (WE ARE nowHERE.)

Entropy is a primordial cause of the structure of general existence? How do you explain the increasing complexity of materialization we see all around us?

4. "Non-planck universe" ends eventually – dissipates completely – having become an absolute zero degrees vacuum.

So the physicalist looks forward not to transcendently real (self-other) LOVE, but, rather, black nullity?

5. Absolute zero degrees vacuum – total symmetry – is indistinguishable from Deity.

The abundant variety of creation arises from & returns to homogenous, black nullity?

0. "Omega point" > the universe (or multiverse) constitutes memories (or dreaming) of Deity (Boltzmann brain?)

This isn't how I interpret Susskind's Holographic Universe Theory. He wrenched a concession from Hawking regarding the preservation of 2nd Law of Thermodynamics through black hole gravitation. This victory puts the Big Bang Theory in doubt.

— 180 Pro0f's *pandeist fairytale* (in sum)
This is how I imagine, even contemplate (strange loop-like), Spinoza's 'natura naturans sub specie durationis'. :fire: — 180 Proof

What is your response to the following characterization of pandeism?

pandeism- nature is a large scale mechanism operational within specifiable, obdurate boundaries. Its productions & their consequences are verifiable by means of evidence examined through the lens of materialist-physicalist premises. Philosophy of nature is propounded by exercise of reason as expressed in logical arguments supported by pertinent evidence.

What is your response to the following question?

Assuming we posit that flights of fancy, via the human imagination, occur within nature as described above, what is the the ontological status of flights of fancy?

Note - This isn't a question concerning specific content of a particular flight of fancy. It is a question about the phenomenon of flight of fancy that departs from reason, eventually making claims that have no empirical verification. Since this phenomenon is an existing thing occurring in nature, examination of its ontology promises illumination of important attributes of reality.

I acknowledge that 180 Proof & Seppo are correct in saying that categorical refutation can be made with the support of sound logic &, moreover, in our context here, such logically sound, categorical refutations have been made. Now I fall back on argument from theory: theory can't be conclusively proven, but rather must ever withstand new onslaughts as they arise, as with Newtonian Physics.

Even in a logical environment, it's bad policy to seek after final answers, as the cusp of a categorical pivot into a new era will be obscured by categorically correct theory.

I don't want to choke off counter-intuitive connections that upwardly dimensionalize orthodoxy.

"Atheism" : only nature :: "solipsism" : only me.
Nothing to do with one another. — 180 Proof

...Language can only exist and have meaning in relation to the empirical world and social/linguistic habits of communities of language-users. — Seppo

Provisional Closing: Three ISMs

Idealism

When the staunch atheist confronts the question of atheism & idealism, an apparent conflict, s/he encounters a bit of trouble WRT to the perennial debate about the ontological status of numbers. Are they discovered, or invented?

Pertaining to the real or ideal question, numbers fall betwixt and between. What is a number? It’s the ultimate marker. Because numbers firmly mark position, a function that affiliates strongly with time, space, energy, motion, direction, volume and momentum, they’re indispensable to science which, for the past three centuries or so, has firmly planted itself within the realist-physicalist camp. Problematically, numbers don’t grow on trees. Clearly, numbers are an abstract, mental construction and yet, they are essential to myriad foundational operations within the real world of empirical experience.

If one says numbers are discovered, then such person lands somewhere in the vicinity of the objective idealism camp. Abstracts objects that, nevertheless, are out there in the objective world of experience hark back to Plato’s Theory of Forms.

If one says numbers are invented, then such person lands somewhere in the vicinity of the subjective idealism camp. Abstract objects, originating in the cognitive operations of mind, hark back to Berkeley’s Immaterialism.

The two above choices pose a problem for the atheist because any type of idealism, being, cognitively speaking, the express lane to theism, looms as a threat to the purity of the atheist, many of whom are realist-physicalist scientists who count numbers as essential.

The Comprehension Restriction

If we think of theism as a whole, logically, we can represent this whole as an all-inclusive set that encompasses all theisms. This is the set of all theisms.

All-inclusive sets allow us to make generalizations in the form of categorical statements. However, categorical statements don’t always lead to valid generalizations.

At the start of the twentieth century, British mathematician Bertrand Russell discovered, along with others, a limit to set-theoretical generalizations. Regarding the set of all sets not members of themselves, if left unrestricted in scope, it terminates in paradox.

Let R = {x ∣x ∉ x}, then R ∈ R ⇐⇒ R ∉ R

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

If the set does belong to the set, then it doesn’t belong to the set.

The theistic parallel to Russell’s Paradox is what you get if you try to refute all theisms by way of a refutation set with no comprehension restrictions.

*Regarding the set of all theisms not members of themselves,

If it is not a member of itself then,

It is a member of itself> it is a theism


If it is a member of itself then,

It is not a member of itself>l it is a not-theism

*A theism that is not a member of itself i.e., not a theism, is a not-theism, as in, “doesn’t exist.”

** In this parallel to Russell’s Paradox, the paradoxical switch, in addition to alternating between member of itself/not a member of itself, also alternates between theism/not-theism.

Just as a set cannot simultaneously be a member of itself and not be a member of itself, a theism cannot simultaneously be a theism and not be a theism.

The necessity of the comprehension restriction tells us that, regarding set theory, there can be no categorical inclusion set that encompasses an entire category and, likewise, there can be no categorical refutation set that refutes an entire category.

In application, this tells us that there is no inclusion set of all sets that are not members of themselves and, likewise, there is no refutation set of all sets that are not members of themselves.

Talking specifically, this means there can be no wholesale, set-theoretical refutation of all possible theisms.

Each specific theism must be refuted individually.

Conclusion – Atheism is a theory of not-theism. If offers no categorical refutation of theism as a whole. Instead, it strives to refute logically, every instance of physicalist evidence claiming to prove theism.

Therefore, atheism, like theism, is an article of faith. As the theist seeks evidence of a cosmic, teleological sentience, the atheist seeks refutation of a cosmic, teleological sentience.

Transcendence Is Essential

By inference from the above, neither theism, nor atheism, at the physicalist-materialist level of existence, can be a sufficient, stand-alone category. Neither category, alone, constitutes reality.

Sufficiency of being requires transcendence of being & transcendence of self across a spectrum that incorporates the empirical universe & the transcendent Logos of deity.

Moreover, this transcendence is bi-directional. The logos of deity needs the physicalist-materialist manifestation of its will no less than its material beings need Logos.

The connection between material being, let us say human, & Logos, effects a mystical duality that subsumes all upwardly dimensional evolutions of reality.

At the level of science, upwardly dimensional evolutions of reality will manifest themselves as stages of increasing empirical complexity.

Monism – Solipsism*

*Note On Solipsism Being a variety of Idealism, solipsism, through Idealism, links atheism to itself.

... Language can only exist and have meaning in relation to the empirical world and social/linguistic habits of communities of language-users. — Seppo

Seppo’s description of language absent cosmic, teleological sentience equals SYNECDOCHE for cosmic monism-solipsism. The rejection of Logos leads to separatism in cosmic solitude. Matter evolves upward dimensionally to the status of a conscious self with no dialogue between that physicalist-materialist self and a cosmically transcendent source. Dialogue with other humans doesn’t break this solitude as the cosmic dialogue between self & other is between categorical human & transcendent deity.

The monist cognition of atheism is stoic, as human, by nature, wants to talk to the creation as a whole. The demands of human nature don’t stop there. Human wants creation to talk back. Human wants to experience cosmic dialogue. The essential gravity of sentience is other sentience. Sentience-to-sentience, on the cosmic scale of self & other, alone can satisfy the soul.

The theism-atheism dialectic boils down to the dualism of sentience-to-sentience vs. the monism of sentience upwardly evolved from non-teleological matter.

The monism-solipsism of realist-physicalist atheism and, therefore, of humanity, as viewed through this POV, is the result of expunging the upwardly dimensional (i.e., beyond three-dimensional reality) presence i.e., deity from existence.

Theism says human is mystically connected to the upwardly dimensional, divine presence which is transcendently real & transcendently sentient. Through this connection, human, in turn (as above in heaven, so below on earth) becomes transcendently real & transcendently sentient.

The chief attribute of this connection is, arguably, faith.

Put in everyday language, faith (vis-à-vis the material world) is the unseen window in a room without windows.

Life, then, under theism, is never completely containable as material substance. It begins in transcendence & whilst it persists, endures in the transcendence of sentience-to-sentience. This is the explicit stance of Neo-Platonists & Christians.

For the atheist, sentient life is only upwardly evolved, and thus upwardly dimensional from matter, but is not transcendently real & is not transcendently sentient. There is no trans-rationality of faith. There is only rationality. If the room has no windows, there is no way out. This is the rationality of physicalism-realism.

And yet, QM continues to pose challenges to this. QM is upwardly dimensionalizing 3-space articulation, thereby reducing its finality.

Jesus, being claimed as the physical manifestation of God, obligates atheists to refute the resurrection of Jesus as God in the flesh.

Since atheism denies the resurrection of Jesus on the cross, it must refute verbal evidence handed across two millennia with contrary evidence, say, another verbal account, contemporaneous with the crucifixion of Jesus.

If human understanding leads to reason-logic-truth, wherein the advent of human has no prior, cosmic, teleological sentience as its cause, but rather follows from a numerical probability of animate physical processes combined absent intent, then the forces driving history & evolution forward are probability and self. This is cosmic monism wherein animal kingdom, with human apex, forms a monist universe arisen probabilistically.

It doesn’t matter if the self takes human form, or some other form. Still, there is only one categorical self. Under the rubric of atheism, the universe is both monist & solipsistic. To be clear, under atheistic evolution, monism-solipsism prevails in the relationship between the collective self and its circumambient universe. Interrelationship between individual instances of selves has no bearing on this.

This monist universe of self-willed human stands in distinction from the binary universe of God-the-other and human, united in the cosmic mystery of LOVE.

Solipsism of Atheism 1 – It’s due to human consciousness being a probabilistically evolved sentience vis-à-vis its circumambient cosmos, or generative matrix. There is only a probabilistically evolved and then self-willed & self-directed self. There is no pre-existing cosmic sentience intending the human self into being. This is a MONIST universe WRT sentience.

Human sentience intended into being via a pre-existing cosmic sentience i.e., God, forms a DUALIST universe WRT to sentience.

Solipsism of Atheism 2 – The physical universe, by including a possible combination of factors that lead to sentience, provides physical evidence that allows recognition of the universe as neutral on the question of cosmic, teleological sentience. This cosmic duality is the essential component of LOVE. Its structure consists in the SELF-OTHER dynamical relationship.

This innate possibility for cosmic duality, through human acknowledgement, leads to the essential component of LOVE. Its structure obtains in the SELF-OTHER dynamical relationship.

To deny cosmic neutrality on the possibility of teleological sentience ordaining the advent of human sentience as a mathematical probability, atheism must postulate a physicalist universe wherein no possible combination of physical factors leading to sentience exists.

Since the agent of this project must necessarily be a sentient being, it’s doomed from the start.

The default option for atheism is to propound a theory featuring an auto-expansion of sentience paralleling the Big Bang.

This is an argument over whether possible combinations of physical factors that prove to be sentience-bearing only occur absent intent. If these combinations can be described & therefore predicted according to mathematical probabilities, then they are not randomly occurring.

The atheism project to deny a cosmic & teleological sentience can, at best, stipulate a paradoxical atheism since the agent of the project, a non-randomly evolved human sentience exists as a contradiction to its own project.

In a solipsistic universe of a monist self, probabilistically evolved and, at some point, self-directed in its upward evolution, LOVE is narcissistic.

It is undoubtedly absurd to talk about 'before," or to use any temporal language to describe the period (another temporal term) before God created time and space. After all, there is no time, so how can we talk about a time before time existed? — Raymond Rider

This is sound reasoning through the lens of three-dimensional set theory.

I agree that the two problems you articulate need to be addressed for the sake of the legitimacy of theism.

If I'm not mistaken, I see an additional problem for theism in your solution to the first time problem. Traditional theism, I think, asserts that God is prior to everything else.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Given the above quote, I'm skeptical about traditional theism accepting that time is co-eternal with God (even if God says so!).

As to the second time problem, as you say, there's no apparent rational start time for populating an empty existential set.

As to the second issue of the second time problem, the infinite causal regress, things perhaps start to get a little bit interesting. If you look at the problem of infinite-regress-in-general through the lens of set-theory, you can give yourself some maneuvering space by looking at the comprehension restrictions that limit the scope of inclusion of sets.

As you might know, around 1900 A.D., logicians saw that unlimited scope of inclusion of sets leads to a paradox that simultaneously places the ultimate set in two contradictory positions.

If I'm not mistaken, this very same problem of paradox-of-unlimited-inclusion applies to popular notions of God as all-encompassing and beyond. Following this line of reasoning, God is comparable to a set without comprehension restrictions. In short, God, so posited, is paradoxical.

Now, of course, Christian theology does address paradoxicality in the form of The Trinity (which is not mentioned in the bible).

Curiously, The Trinity is an assertion of paradoxicality within the material world of empirical reality.

Also curious, in the science world of realism, is the assertion that our universe has no center, nor any boundaries.

These two examples of complexities pertaining to the boundary ontology of sets alerts us to an important question - What about the complexities pertaining to the boundary ontology of sets?

In the literature I've read thus far pertaining to the comprehension restrictions, no issue is made about boundary ontology. I think it's up to the philosopher to address this question.

I find that QM is strongly impelling me towards a notion of upward-dimensionality as a lens through which to examine a concept of God as a phenomenon of four-dimensional set theory.

:up:

Fair Damsel - Oh, Leibniz. Your monads are so devine!

Leibniz- Alright, baby! Lemme show you what I've got upstairs. We'll plot the curve of this spiral staircase as we ascend.

Regarding time without direction (pre-Big Bang), can you elaborate some behavioral details? For example, do past-present-future evolve simultaneously?

Can one who is unintelligent not practice philosophy? If the practice of philosophy does not make one a philosopher, why must there be other characteristics to define a philosopher? — CallMeDirac

Can one not be dedicated to a field without education in the field? If one requires education in a field to be considered in the field, how can one found a field or school of thought? — CallMeDirac

You ask highly intelligent and thought-provoking questions. More power to you. A Person-On-The-Street type of philosopher is much needed. Perhaps you can join the ranks of those who keep philosophy street-level.

When your child takes her first steps, it ain't ballet. But you, an inveterate walker, stand there, ready to catch her when she falls forward into your arms.

When the philosopher-royal, momentarily bored by the priesthood, steps out of bounds of university for a Sunday walk, but nonetheless refuses to dialogue with the curious rabble, suddenly affrighted; s/he reaffirms the public face of philosophy*: ill-tempered snobbery.

*In this context, philosophy refers to higher learning without regard to a particular discipline.

I guess some believe 'to enjoy using knives' (e.g. carving the holiday turkey / ham) 'makes one a surgeon'. :mask: — 180 Proof

Just an aside - When you're destroying one of my propositions, try to do it with some of the wit shown above. :blush:

We live in different worlds. Put differently, we interpret ideas
in accordance with a larger worldview that each of us carry around with us. — Joshs

A given culture consists of many worldviews that often don’t understand each other, as our politically polarized times demonstrates. — Joshs

If a philosopher or writer or scientist offers an idea that we cannot assimilate within our worldview we will reject or misinterpret that idea, or it may simply be invisible to us. — Joshs

It does t matter how many ways you try and package the content of a given philosophy. You could translate it into poetry, have it delivered by a stand-up
comedian or by corporate-style bullet point presentation. — Joshs

The central problem won’t be the delivery or language or style, but the readiness of the recipient to assimilate it into their worldview. — Joshs

The statements above contain an excellent summary of the daunting challenges facing any person seeking to communicate in depth.

Is not communication in depth the main project of the philosopher? If so, then, as I believe, the project to communicate in depth is a good way to define both philosophy & the philosopher.

What is communication (in depth, or otherwise)?

Jon Anderson, vocalist for rock band Yes, sang it to us when he sang, "Don't surround yourself with yourself."

This is the challenge posed to all of us by the effort of communication.

As a philosopher, don't you want to reach as many people as you can?

Josh presents us with a brilliant elaboration of the work before us as both human beings & as philosophers. But look at his attitude, as evidenced below,

The ‘everybody’ you talk about is a fiction. It can take hundreds of years for segments of a given culture to grasp the ideas of a certain era of philosophy. Conservative America is a long way from understanding post-Hegelian thought, which is already 200 years old, and you can’t blame it on the messenger. — Joshs

He sees clearly the work that needs doing, and yet the clarity of his vision seems to be in service of a cynical despair about the possibility of success.

Of course it's impossible to be a philosopher. That's why everybody laughs at us. We're errant fools for trying.

"Any bloke wit common sense knows 'ees better off quaffin' a pint 'n tryin' to explain the world."

Donald O'Connor, of Singin' In the Rain told us about storytelling, "Make 'em laugh!"

Alrighty then. Who's got a couple of post-Hegelian jokes?

Sleep deprived students with an attention span that can be measured in seconds may find something dull, boring & sleep-inducing that requires alertness, attention, and hard work. — Fooloso4

There’s an important distinction needing to be made here, as the difficult & the boring are very different things.

Just now, we’re evaluating the boring, not the difficult.

The general public has never been equipped to read or understand great philosophy. The demand to be entertained is one of, but certainly not the only reason they are ill-equipped. — Fooloso4

I suspect you proceed from the premise that entertainment has no truck with communication of important (and therefore serious) ideas & information.

Sam Beckett’s Godot, when performed in prisons, usually lands forcefully with audiences there; they enjoy it as much as other audiences. Given that prison audiences oftentimes include some of our most educationally-deprived citizens, this tells us something important about capacity of comprehension by the general public.

Most everyone has heard, and enjoyed, Gershwin’sRhapsody In Blue. It’s everywhere because the public likes it. No need to be a chamber music habitue to appreciate Gershwin’s sublimities.

Is the demand for entertainment a matter of indifference to the cognoscenti?

I say meeting the demands of the general public, in any field, establishes the most correct yardstick for measuring success.

Stephen Hawking, a theoretical physicist who focused on spacetime, quantum mechanics & black holes, would seem to be a poster boy for the difficult. True enough. If the general public is ill-equipped for the difficult, how come A Brief History of Time was a best seller?

From the cognoscenti to the skid row bum, and all points in-between, people are the same.

So why not talk to everybody, if you have something to say? Doing that successfully, however, entails being interesting, as in being entertaining.

Being entertaining in one's work, philosophical or otherwise, is an individual trait... — Garrett Travers

I think you’re saying for any philosopher, being able to entertain the audience with emotional gratification coupled with the excitement of learning is an added-value attribute that serves the mission of philosophy (as well as education in general) as a grace note, lovable, but non- essential.

This argument is formidably sound; it’s familiar to most us.

I have a lament, probably familiar to you. It concerns the package in which the contents are delivered.

In the performing arts, delivery is critically important, even if not of the same status as content. Consider the standup comic. If s/he flubs a line reading of a joke – especially if it be the punchline (barring a great ad lib) – the joke (and sometimes the comic) is dead.

Even with a letter-perfect delivery, sans great timing – sometimes improved for the audience of the moment – the joke might very well land with a thud.

Likewise the singer. On paper, more than one great song looks like next to nothing. Why is it a great song & perennial favorite? It’s the packaging, the delivery by the performing artist.

Here’s an ad lib question from me. Considering the importance of delivery, which is to say, packaging, in the performing arts, is there an existential difference between storytelling for entertainment and storytelling for science (i.e., philosophy)?*

*Might this be a serious question under aesthetics?

How come the scientists & the philosopher-royals get to stand up there in lecture hall and drone on in monotone as s/she slogs through bland techno-babble, devoid of enlightening metaphors, and permanently divorced from anything resembling wit?

This brings us to another familiar argument: the dialectic of form vs. content.

There’s evidence science does have an aesthetic standard. We’ve all heard about the elegance of simplicity pertaining to equations & theories.

Seems to me the reason is obvious why everyone knows Einstein’s equation, whereas Schrödinger’s equation?

Philosophy & the philosopher, if they're any good, embody an important sub-division under the rubric of entertainment.

The philosopher, if s/he's any good, entertains the general public with explorations of the deep & intriguing questions.

Nietzsche is a name that rings loud & long within the public's imagination because he is a very entertaining writer. The drama, the emotionalism, the sweep & direction of human history and the high stakes of the Ubermensch gambit have many of us enthralled. Moreover, the fact he was a handsome man who cut a dashing figure didn't hurt.

The deep shade covering part of Nietzsche's character & legacy embellish his memory with a frisson of darkness & evil. Was he the metaphysician who empowered Nazism?

Entertainment is, arguably, the most important human behavior of them all.

Three of the perennial questions posed by philosophy are: What's the meaning of life? What's the purpose of life? What makes the good life?

Oftentimes, the big three questions are used as hammers to bash philosophy. Pie in the sky! Pretensions of the leisure class! Ivory tower speculations entertained by eggheads! Now that you've solved the problems of the world, can you come down from Mt. Olympus and get a real job?

Not to worry fellow travelers. Philosophy has a simple, one-word, unpretentious answer to the big three questions.

Entertainment. Yeah. That's what we're supposed to be doing whilst we live. Telling stories to each other & keeping ourselves entertained. And that is what we're doing, most of the time.

Gather a bunch of folks into a great hall & make them wait for something, say, an important event of some kind or other. Before long, the great hall is buzzing with exchange of narratives flying about every which way.

We must fill up our time with entertainment!

As a human being, it is your duty to be entertaining!

The successful performing artist lives as a god because s/he brings interest, excitement & diversion into the lives of others.

To be entertaining is to be noble.

A philosopher fails not when s/he embraces wacky concepts supported by faulty logic, but rather whenever s/he is dull, boring & sleep-inducing.

Who are the great philosophers? They're the one's who get read by the general public, generation after generation.

Great ideas & great philosophy are two different things because great ideas presented in a bland, dull, impenetrable narrative IS NOT READ. So who knows about it? No one. Philosophy is not great until it is read about & known by the general public.

Question - What is entertainment? It is education in its highest manifestation. Public, formal education, alas, all too often is NOT entertaining. Ever had a good teacher? They were entertaining!

The above statement is the popular definition. Below lies the boring definition. (Forgive me.)

Entertainment is the bi-directional -which is to say, dualistic - experience of the witness to a transformative - which is to say, life-changing - narrative.

Here's what I mean by bi-directional: when you entertain me, I have a simultaneous experience of two opposing connections: a) I'm drawn out of myself by interest in the life of the main character of the story (that's you); AT THE SAME TIME b) I'm pushed into myself by self-identification with the life of the main character of the story (that's me).

Simultaneous bi-directionality leads to TRANSPORT. When I experience transport in response to a narrative, I'm de-localized by interest in the other person, but at the same time I'm centered within myself by interest in my identification with the other person.

We're not happy when we're just ourselves. We're happy when we're just ourselves, and at the same time, paradoxically, not just ourselves. That's entertainment! That's sex!

People my age have Beatlemania for an example of transport. The four mop tops pulled us out of ourselves with their difference, la (that's supposed to be French). Also, they pushed us more vividly into ourselves through our identification with their difference, la

An earlier generation had Elvis. A later generation had Michael Jackson.

Question - Who's transporting today's young people?

Indeed. U=IR. I is time dependent. PV=nkT. Dynamical balance — Schootz1

:up:

When there is a cause, change occurs. When change occurs, it has a cause. — ucarr

Do you deny this? If so, show me a change that has no cause. In this instance, your example can be a phenomenon of change that takes time to occur.

Also, do you think the above is philosophy? I think it's common sense.

There are a few physical formula in which time does not play a role. Each of these is an example of cause without time. The resistance of a circuit and the colour of a black body are two more examples. — Banno

you cannot accept them as falsifying your hypothesis. — Banno

Hence your need to move the goalposts from change to causation. — Banno

You obviously think change & cause are two very different things.

I think they're directly connected. When there is a cause, change occurs. When change occurs, it has a cause. If this direct relationship is true, and we both know it is, then your claims about change over distance imply a cause. You should therefore have neither complaint nor critical commentary in response to being asked to supply one. Elaborating how it comes to pass that some type of change over distance is caused is a basic part of your job in supporting your claim with an argument. Your examples thus far have brought forth denials supported by commonplace, definitive evidence.

When you assert that change over distance is a timeless phenomenon within our empirical reality, you're advancing a radical claim that naturally excites calls for elaboration of scientific truth unknown to most observers.

You're obviously hunting around for qualifying examples. Thus far, you haven't found any.

resistance of a circuit > drop in current flow CAUSED by resistance of a circuit is not timeless

change in color of a black body > measurement of color temperature as based upon a theoretical black body is not timeless

The measurement problem in physics relates to Heisenberg and Schrodinger... — Edmund

Are you referring to quantum measurements of vectors when the wave function is operational?

...but in essence revolves around the possible "influence" of the observer/measurer. — Edmund

Are you asserting the presence of the observer as the main cause of Heisenberg Uncertainty? If so, I suspect this is a major proposition you should propound.

Berkeley's view that to be was to be perceived seems therefore particularly precient? — Edmund

I suppose we know that observer-observed are contemporaneous. What do you have to say about unobserved things? Do they exist?

A weight sitting on a cushion deforms the cushion. The weight cause the cushion to change over distance. — Banno

State 1: cushion without weight = shape of cushion 1
State 2: cushion with weight sitting on it = shape of cushion 2

Question - What causes shape of cushion 1 to become shape of cushion 2?

When asking about causation, we're asking about a connection or relationship between two states of being. We're asking about the before and the after.

What's at the center of our focus here is connection, or relationship. We're not looking at State 1 and then jumping to look at State 2. Such a jump, like a cut in a motion picture from one scene to another, can be conceptualized as being timeless, but, in phenomenal reality, there are no timeless cuts.

In your head, you can visualize a motion picture like cut and imagine it to be timeless, however, in phenomenal reality, as Schootz1 points out, the weight deforms the cushion via the action of gravitation upon its mass, which causes movement across an interval of time of positive value.

You can talk about juxtaposing two points of view of a material object and say they express two different forms of the same object. You can call this a juxtaposition of different forms, but change of, or change over - outside of time - don't apply.

You have not given a single example of change of state of being outside of time. Your persistence in claiming such is based on a misuse of change over distance.

Banno, I think you're saying causation is trivial. Please elaborate by giving us a trivial, mundane cause of
change in the state of a material object with time equal to zero for the change.

CAUSE, like CHANGE, refers to an alteration in the state of things, over time. The deformation of the cushion, involving motion, consumes time.

The deformed cushion, a rest state, doesn't exemplify change.

Exercise leads to (causes) big muscles. This is, clearly, change in the state of a physical body over time.

As long as you use CHANGE in your proposition, you will need to demonstrate a change of state of one thing that consumes zero time.

What causes change over distance?

In the case of everyday physics, change over time via motion is caused by a change in the inertial state of a material object.

A real-world, specific example goes thus: a boulder sits at the base of a hill. Its inertial state is rest. Another boulder, rolling down said hill strikes the first boulder, setting it in motion. It rolls for a distance of 20 feet over a time interval of 29 seconds.

This change over time via motion was caused by a change in the inertial state of the resting boulder to the inertial state of a rolling boulder.

Can you give a real-world, specific example of a cause that effects a change over distance, with elapsed time equal to zero?

I'm not sure the matter is sufficiently well-defined to answer the question definitively. It doesn't appear to be logically impossible (it doesn't appear to entail a contradiction), but whether it is nomologically/metaphysically possible is ambiguous (which is, again, itself a problem for theism's credibility). — Seppo

Question – How does an agent in the non-physical category (spirit) cause observable effects in the physical category (physics)?

Theism (theistic metaphysics) has a responsibility to propound spirit-matter transduction.

Atheism (atheistic metaphysics) has a responsibility to examine the same question, with intent to show impossibility.

Please see above post.

Do you allow that transduction between spirit-matter being possible is the premise of the atheistic seekers to whom you've been referring?

If you reject such transduction, then you assert that spirit-matter contact is rationally impossible, and the existence of spirit is scientifically undecidable, with extreme skepticism.

When a seeker tries to find physical evidence of immaterial being interacting with matter, that's a very specific search. If the speaker is reacting to claims made to that effect, then the seeker must proceed from the premise that the immaterial being possesses a physical component that makes contact with material onjects. This premise contains another premise > that material evidence can only result from material agents acting upon it. If the seeker doesn't commit to these premises, then s/he allows that transduction between matter and spirit might be possible.

Question to change over distance advocates. What causes change over distance?

In what context are you willing to answer my question about logic being independent or invented?
Sidebars into related topics have been ok before, or am I mistaken?
My question advances a line of attack on a type of atheist argument that uses the invented abstract structures of logic.

Is it not true that before the question of God's causal relationship with the physical world can be examined via the benchmark of physical evidence, the examiner must presuppose a physical component within God's being? I pose the question this way because the object to be examined i.e., God's contact with the physical world, logically requires a common ground where the two can meet. Either spirit converts to physical, or vice versa. The acceptance of this equalization upon a common ground of physicality by the atheist examiners you postulate is suggested by their seeking after physical evidence. In the absence of a physical component within God, one can ask how atheist examiners expect to find physical evidence left behind by pure spirit.

Why would linguistic/conceptual analysis showing that certain terms or predicates are mutually exclusive... — Seppo

...imply that "grammar of logic is extant independent of human reasoning"? — Seppo

There's a perennial debate whether numbers are discovered or invented. I'm asking a parallel question about logic.

If your answer is that logic is an invention of human understanding, do you acknowledge that together, human understanding and logic form a monism?