Or rather, @180 Proof, @Tobias, @god must be atheist

Contextualize the following statement made by me within solipsism.

I exist. — Agent Smith

Hey Strange, you know what's cooler than magic? Math! — Spider man

Peter Parker says the above line while inside Dr. Strange's illusion - it so happens that Strange's magic, it's mathematical (e.g. transformation, projection, symmetry, all mathematical (geometric) concepts). The difference between Parker and Strange is that the former understands the magic, while the latter only uses it, kinda like the difference between a automobile engineer and a driver.

@180 Proof@Tobias

Contextualize the following statement made by me within solipsism.

I don't exist. — Agent Smith

Very helpful comment. Bookmarked it (anosognosia) for future reference.

The 3 marks of existence (re Buddhism)
1. Anicca (impermanence)
2. Anatta (no self)
3. [ii]Dukkha[/i] (suffering/unsatisfactoriness)

I win on a technicality though 180 Proof - altering the contents of a universe at will and in any way one fancies is to have an effect on the entire universe. Me getting all nerdy here.

I like Dr. Stephen Strange too, but it's odd that someone like yourself - dead against magical thinking - should have him on your list of favorite (Marvel) character. Does this mean, mon ami, that there's a place in your heart for religious folks? :grin:

:rofl:

All I know is this:

Where i = $\sqrt{-1}$ and all of the following takes place in the complex plane

1 Start with 1
2. 1 × i = i (90 degree anticlockwise rotation)
3. 1 × i × i = -1 (another 90 degrees anticlockwise rotation for a total of 180 degrees, same direction)
4. 1 × i × i × i = -i (another 90 degrees anticlockwise rotation for a total of 270 degrees, same direction)
5. 1 × i × i × i × i = 1 (another 90 degrees anticlockwise rotation for a total of 360 degrees, same direction. We're back to square 1)

Clyclical transformation (?), much like sine and cosine.

I think I'm an illusion. Am I mad?

:up:

Would the thought everything exists except me qualify as a delusion?

Thank you, Agent Smith! — god must be atheist

:up:

I always bow to your immense amount of lexical knowledge, far superior to mine. — god must be atheist

You jest of course.

Principle of plenitude
1. Static = Possibilitism
2. Dynamic = Potentialism

Exotemporabilism is a regular feature in religion.

Is it's possible that Mark wasn't home that day a good justification for I doubt if Mark killed Susan? It's possible that what we consider to be reality could be an illusion. Do I now posses a good reason to doubt the authenticity of reality?

Dr. Strange, it turns out, is as powerful as Thanos with all infinity stones in the gauntlet - both can destroy entire universes through their actions (one only has to snap his fingers while the other has to commit a blunder that has ripple effects).

:lol:

RogueAI is quite specific about his question.

Existence is infinite but astathmēta. So ... ?

If I were an 8 year old and someone told me we are math, I'd think we're either a number (arithmetic) or a shape (geometry). Of course these two fields turned out to be interchangeable (coordinate geometry, courtesy Descartes). I believe I'm a fly.

Wtf — 180 Proof

Oh come on!

[ ... ] Thus atheism as to the why and how of existence is no less an article of faith than is theism.
Nonsense. That's like saying 'celibacy is no less a sex position than sodomy'. :roll: — 180 Proof

:rofl:

Atheism is, I would have to agree, (cosmic) solipsism. A question that might be of interest to you: What would be the mental & physical environment such that no one in that environment would ever entertain the idea of (a) god(s)? Are there existing communities, perhaps uncontacted Amazonian tribes, that have never thought of god(s)? I suppose the number is nought but then that means theism has, dare I say it?, (proto-)rational roots i.e. it's reasonable, even if only in the most basic sense of reasonable.

What's 4D logic? Just curious... — Shawn

Temporal logic?

Moore's paradox — fdrake

:up: It's consistent to believe I'm not a man while it's in fact the case that I am a man or in more general terms it is consistent to believe x while it's not x and vice versa. Doesn't bode well for the LGBTQ community I'm afraid. It boils down to the difference betwixt facts and beliefs - not the same thing and the problem is more widespread, it's almost everywhere, this.

I'm sorry but I don't see any absurdity.

$P(E/H) = \frac{P(E) \times P(H/E)}{P(H)}$

Each one of these probabilities (use the variable p) can be such that
1. p = 50% (agnostic)
2. p < 50% (unlikely)
3. p > 50% (likely)

Note that $0\% \leq p \leq 100\%$

There are 3 values to consider [p is P(E) or P(H/E) or P(H)] to calculate P(E/H) and so there should be $3^3 = 27$ possibilities to calculate. Lemme calculate two of these possibilities (vide infra)

1. P(E) = 50%; P(H/E) = 50%; P(H) = 50%

$P(E/H) = \frac{50\% \times 50\%}{50\%} = 50\%$ i.e. we have to be agnostic about it.

2. P(E) = 50%; P(H/E) < 50% (let's say it's 40%); P(H) = 50%

$P(E/H) = \frac{50\% \times 40\%}{50\%} = 40\%$ i.e. its unlikely.

So on and so forth ...

For different time frames e.g. in the next 10,000 years, in the next microsecond, etc. we can scale up/down the probability we assign to P(H) = aliens will contact us in the next 10 years. For example the suppose P(H) = 20%. Then the probability that aliens will contact us in the next 5 years will be 10% [5 years is half of 10 years; I'm assuming that the probability of contact increases with time].

N. B. Scaling up can sometimes lead to percentage probabilities > 100%. These should all be made = 100%.

For example, given that the probability of contact within the next 10 years is 70%, what is the probability of contact in the next 100 years? 70% × 10 = 700%. Probabilities can't be > 100%. You'll have to go with 100%.

Because, according to how the multiverse works, what happens in one universe affects other universes.

That doesn't say ostensive definitions are impossible. If you go to the PI, and read §28 and onwards, you might get a different view. — Banno

So memory skepticism is all there's to Wittgenstein's PLA? I though he'd seen other issues, one of which I presumed, not wrongly it turns out, was that ostensive definitions, something's off about them.

Turns out the quote you cite was inserted (begun) by yours truly, back in 2006. — Banno

:up:

I'm sorry to know we don't have a linguist in the forum.

Two ways to tackle this: 1) a given philosophy is deemed useless, or 2) a given philosophy is deemed bad.
— Moliere

Mashallah! Keep it comin'! — Agent Smith

Worst-case scenario: A philosophy is both bad and useless i.e. baduseless! :grin:

There are as many ancient ones as there are parallel universes, just as there are as many Dr. Stranges as there are yada yada yada. That's the whole point!

It might be supposed that one might use "a kind of ostensive definition" for S, by focusing on the sensation and on the symbol. Early in The Investigations, Wittgenstein attacks the usefulness of ostensive definition.[7] He considers the example of someone pointing to two nuts while saying "This is called two". How does it come about that the listener associates this with the number of items, rather than the type of nut, their colour, or even a compass direction? One conclusion of this is that to participate in an ostensive definition presupposes an understanding of the process and context involved, of the form of life.[8] Another is that "an ostensive definition can be variously interpreted in every case". — Wikipedia

Addendum

The OP is directed at the subargument of Wittgenstein's PLA (private language argument) where he goes on to say definitions are impossible for definitions build up from ostensive ones, but ostensive definitions are plagued by ambiguity, as outlined in the OP.

In my estimate, assisted suicide is connected to the legalization of drugs. One big reason why drugs are so bad is that they must be consumed on the sly (get caught and its at least 5 years in the slammer) and that means no safety regulation, no medical care, you get the idea. Once drugs are legalized, junkies can get high safely (e.g. quality control, sterile disposable syringes, medication for complications, research-based protocols for drug use, etc.) and that saves us a whole lot of trouble. Same thing for assissted suicide (e.g. desperate folks can avail of quick & painless, safe & tested, modes of dying). That's a plus, not a minus.

Bartricks is bang on target. God created heaven (that makes sense), but then earth with widespread evil, I think earth just fell out of heaven or rose up from hell. That makes sense. To Bartricks things havta make sense; everything else is just a pair of hairy bollocks! :grin:

Si comprhenedis non est Deus.

I believe Bartricks when he says "I'm a philosopher". I believe you Bartricks, I believe you! :smile:

A good question by all standards. If I say "I'm a soldier" or "I'm Arnold Schwarzenegger" then that involves some amount of, let's just say, duty and responsibility. It's amiss/odd to think of oneself as a monk and then to fornicate wildly, high on ecstacy. :grin:

I don't know what existence precedes essence has to do with all this, but it just popped into my mind as I was making this post. Perhaps, "you can be anything you want, baby."

I understand. Good day.

@180 Proof

The BothAnd of Enformstionism surely does explain the, how shall I put it?, the dialectical (+ vs. -) nature of interactions in reality - from a cooling cuppa tea on your table to this debate the three of us are engaged in, it's all duality at work. If you ask me, we can even make predictions - where do you think this convo is headed? The more one digs one's heels in, the more vulnerable one's position gets. I propose that we pursue some kinda ad interim philosophy e.g. physiciality is actual, nonphysicality is (only) a possibility and so materialism, but only provisionally, to be modified/swapped in the light of new evidence.

Yep, some presuppositions are made.

@RogueAI

H = Aliens will contact us in the next 10 years
E = Aliens have never contacted us in the past

$P(E/H) = \frac{P(H \land E)}{P(H)}$ (i)

Consider.

1. Do aliens have favorites?

If they don't, E and H are dependent on each other. They might not want to visit a place they've already been to. P(E/H) decreases.

If they do, E and H are still dependent on each other. May be they like the place and want to see it again even if what they liked about earth is long gone. P(E/H) increases.

---

Refreshing me memory ...

$P(H/E) = \frac{P(H \land E)}{P(E)}$ (ii)

From (i) and (ii)

$P(E/H) \times P(H) = P(H/E) \times P(E)$

$P(E/H) = \frac{P(H/E) \times P(E)}{P(H)}$

The assumption of static meanings is a foundational axiom of epistemology. If that axiom is rejected, then there cannot be a substantial and objective notion of epistemic error, beliefs cannot be identified with mental states and people can only be said to make predictions.

Second-order skepticism about the existence of static meaning is antithetical to first-order skepticism about the truth of our theories. — sime

:up: