Sorry about that Frank, here's the full quote:

In 2008, after their greed, recklessness, and illegal behavior created the worst financial disaster since the Great Depression, with millions of Americans losing their jobs, their homes and their life savings, Wall Street’s religious adherence to unfettered capitalism suddenly came to an end,” Sanders said Wednesday. “Overnight, Wall Street became big-government socialists and begged for the largest federal bailout in American history — over $1 trillion from the Treasury and even more from the Federal Reserve. But it’s not just Wall Street that loves socialism — when it works for them. It is the norm across the entire corporate world.”

Socialism takes on many forms, and means different things for different industries relative to capitalism. Bernie's argument is that Dumpertrumper provides socialism for the rich; from tax laws to bailouts:

"...Wall Street became big-government socialists and begged for the largest federal bailout in American history — over $1 trillion from the Treasury and even more from the Federal Reserve. But it’s not just Wall Street that loves socialism — when it works for them. It is the norm across the entire corporate world.”

Did you take down the Caller Id of the Creator when he called you? — god must be atheist

I talked to God yesterday and he basically said Caller ID = Pantheism. I took no exception.

:brow:

More praying results in higher likelihood of change (since there is more god-force in the area) — 141

Prayer and meditation enables the law of attraction. Positive or negative thoughts bring positive or negative experiences into a person's life. We reap what we sow.

Time exists a a relation between states of affairs. I don't believe abstraction exist independently of states of affairs. — Relativist

What does state of affairs mean?

Triangular objects exist even if there are no minds to conceptualize triangles. — Relativist

How is that possible?

Do all fictions, past present, and future exist? — Relativist

Think of time itself, as being both abstract and concrete. (Does time exist? And how does it exist, abstractly?)

That sounds like Platonism. My problem with ontologies that include platonic objects is that they seem unnecessary. Why posit an independent existence for triangles, when triangles can be accounted for as constituents of triangular objects? Further, how do triangles exist independently? How do they get connected to objects? Can the connection be severed? This makes it even more unnecessarily complex? Can they replaced with squares simply by replacing the connection? — Relativist

I don't think it's Platonism because it assumes an independent existence outside of consciousness. The triangulation of a roof truss exists abstractly. The connection can be 'severed' and independent of the concrete thing itself, the roof truss.

The notation is interpreted by a musician, analogously to a reader interpreting print words. Words refer to objects, concepts, actions etc, while musical notations refer to the various aspects of sounds you mention. The sounds can be reproduced on an instrument, or merely interpreted within the musician's mind. — Relativist

Yes, what you stated is the phenomenon relative to metaphyscal language.

Both ways are consistent with the way of abstraction. We mentally consider a set of attributes common to all triangles to form the abstraction in our minds, then reverse the process, adding back concrete elements. — Relativist

Yes, I agree. But they [abstracts] are not needed to build concrete things, that exist.

That doesn't entail independent existence apart from the things that relate in that way. — Relativist

I'm thinking that it would entail an independent existence. If a given abstract does not exist for the sole purposes of the creation of a particular concrete thing, by definition, it would then be something independent of the thing itself. In other words, if it can be created and/or exists without such abstract knowledge, then what is its purpose for existing?

To that end, using the laws of gravity once more, they do not confer any biological survival value when one can simply dodge falling objects.

Musical notation isn't an abstraction, it's a semantics that maps to various aspects of sound. — Relativist

I'm not sure I'm with you on that one. Much like written mathematical formula, musical notation represents otherwise-produced symbols, including notation for durations of sound as well as the absence of sound such as rests. I don't see the difference, or even how semantics would play a role.

As far as Platonic abstracts, in my view, the link to timeless truth's is about the closest metaphor we can relate to (in order to be useful), when comparing universal's such as mathematical abstracts; I think they can be non-physical phenomena, yet dependent on consciousness for their apprehension. I'm not a Platonist, but maybe Wayfarer could elucidate there, since Platonism would include the idea that both non-physical and non-mental abstracts exist.

But back to abstracts music and math. When looking at a pre-engineered beam, I know what exists abstractly is a mathematical formula that underlies its physical reality. Conversely, when I read abstract musical notation, I hear music. Abstracts can work both ways.

Great question R !!

In a word, I want to say yes. They exist as metaphysical abstracts.

Common analogies (that underlie/describe the physical world), which you probably already know, include:

1. Laws of gravity in physics
2. Engineering/Design formulas for; compressive forces, tensile strength, torsional forces, etc.
3. Musical notation

Also, I agree, I think Omega is useful, yet unknowable.

My question would be how would those metaphysical abstract's relate to the phenomenal world of consciousness and Being, if at all(?). In other words, how useful are they to us, in that context of consciousness and Being. In a paradoxical way, numbers and math can describe the physical world's underlying properties, yet they are purely abstract. I wonder if there is a connection to something...

Quod non es, intellegere non possis intelligere; se communicare non you-- AH Maslow

Bene, quid habes reversus cum magna dicens!

Quod non intelligis?

You may want to check-in with Dr. Spock, he's not as emotional as you seem to be... .
LOL

The answer to why they were, of course, was to cover-up for the Dumpertrumper. Regarding Russian agents, since he was convicted by a jury I'm thinking Roger/the Dumpertrumper knows (or perhaps the jury)?

What do you think?

I didn't use existence as a predicate. — Douglas Alan

With all due respect, I think you did. You said S (x).
No?

In any case, nothing in Russell's project implied propositions should be tautologies. Quite to the contrary. He just wanted to be able to translate the meaning of all propositions into formal logic, and consequently assert that all propositions have truth values. — Douglas Alan

Well with all due respect, that's really not making sense:

A priori=formal logic=potential for tautologies.

We cannot a priori determine the truth value of this statement just because it has been expressed in formal logic — Douglas Alan

Indeed. And so would Kant, I think. Accordingly, I believe he would say existence is not a real predicate, in that existence in itself by definition, does not describe its properties. And so S (x) would be a synthetic statement v. a more obvious analytic/a priori/ tautological statement.

Of course, the ontological argument for God's existence is the contextual framework for all that. To this end, a priori formal logico-deductive reasoning would not be the exclusive means or tool to use in trying to determine causation, Being, so on and so forth [for a Deity's existence]. Instead, most would agree (theoretical physicists) that synthetic judgements and inductive reasoning is the more appropriate method when making statements and/or discovering properties about same.

In Cosmology/Metaphysics it therefore makes the "search for a Deity" more bottom-up, versus the traditional approach for most creationist's who seem to prefer top-down-logic. Personally, I like both.

The phenomena of living this life is much more than simple a priori/ tautological statements... .

The difference is I don’t need any resource beyond simple reason to teach me what’s true or false. — NOS4A2

Dumpertrumper,

Regarding fake news and Russian interference, are you using reason or your simple-reason, in determining your status as a misinformed troll ?

Sorry but you're too easy!

LOL

No, that's not right. The project of reducing all propositions to formal logic is orthogonal to logical positivism, which is the thesis that only propositions that can be verified (either via irrefutable reasoning or via empirical observation) have meaning. — Douglas Alan

That's not right either Douglas. Formal logic is a priori.

Whether Russel was in fact a logical positivist is a matter of debate, as far as I'm aware. He definitely wasn't part of the movement. — Douglas Alan

I think he was at one time, then basically discovered it's limitations. Perhaps another one who awoke from his dogmatic slumber's :brow:

This program of trying to transform all propositions into formal logic was quite problematic, and I'm pretty sure that this goal has largely been abandoned by philosophers. (Though I don't know for sure, since that was the end of my studies in Philosophy of Language.) — Douglas Alan

I think basically you're referring to Logical Positivism. And as such, it denies propositions that relate to sentient Beings (Ontology, Metaphysics, Cosmology).

Examples that LP's or analytical philosopher's , for whatever reason (psychologically that is), find no truth value in:

1. All events must have a cause (synthetic a priori)
2. All bachelors are happy (Ontological proposition)
3. The color red is an exciting color
4. Truth is beautiful; that car is beautiful, he is angry, why do I wonder about things, I feel happy/sad, etc.. etc..

As for logical paradoxes, such as "This sentence is false", Tarski tried to resolve these sorts of things. IIRC, he argued that "This sentence is false" fails to be a proposition and hence the fact that it can't have a truth value doesn't allow us to conclude that there are propositions without truth values. — Douglas Alan

The liars paradox basically proves that Omega is unknowable.

Such propositions would have truth values, though, would they not? So they are not problematic for those who hold that propositions always have truth values. — Douglas Alan

In reference to your question about synthetic propositions, again, the analytical philosopher or the LP would deny/consider such a statement as nonsensical, which is one reason why LP (has limitations) is not used in say cognitive science/psychology or theoretical physics, etc. etc..

The irony seems to be that although the LP recognizes the empirical method for discovering/uncovering its truth value, for whatever reason they deny the aforementioned propositions relating to existential phenomenlogy... .

What has he ever built? What has he ever ran? What has he ever done? — NOS4A2

Dumpertrumper,

I think your dad filed for bankruptcy numerous times. And he was found guilty of defrauding people from his fake University, that also went defunkt.

Put in another quarter and try again. LOL

I don’t see it as versus Darwinian instinct — Possibility

I don't either. However I'm trying to parse the nature of Metaphysical features from our consciousness.

When we say ‘beyond’, people think ‘instead of’, when what we mean is ‘including but not limited to’. — Possibility

Agreed, some people do, I don't. It still leaves the question unanswered, in your view?

This is the challenge for metaphysics, too - not to simply dismiss the illusion, but to ‘show our working’. — Possibility

How do you propose we understand this mental phenomena in a better way, from what we now know in the 21st Century?

It’s uncertain and relative, but we can use it to make predictions about our interactions with the world, to plan for and orchestrate events before they occur, to create new possibilities out of a simple interaction, and to freely determine and initiate events - much like quantum potential. — Possibility

Possibility, do you happen to have any examples?

The Will to live is determined from one’s limited perception of potential and value in relation to their life: the likelihood of their life changing over time, and the influence this perception can have on their life in the future. — Possibility

Sorry for all the questions, I'm just trying to understand your philosophy here viz the Will. Are you saying that there is an element of ignorance associated with making choices? Or are you saying the Will is an intrinsic fixed thing implanted in consciousness that keeps us alive?

I'm trying piece that all together with your earlier post, combined with this post.

Contrary to common misreadings, Kant expressly resisted and actively denied the conflation of the a priori with the innate: "The Critique [of Pure Reason] admits absolutely no divinely implanted (anerschaffene) or innate (angeborene) representations — StreetlightX

But as it stands, the a priori is not the innate, and to confuse the two would be a fatal misreading of Kant. — StreetlightX

I think you captured the exact concern that the OP posits.

My interpretation is the opposite. Firstly, these are Metaphysical queries. And as such, the innate sense of wonderment that human's have exist a priori.

The infamous 'all events must have a cause' is Kant's version of metaphysical questions that exist a priori, and/or are partially from an innate sense of wonderment.

Yes?

As I mentioned, some propositions, will not carry a truth value, and different logicians have different opinions about what to do about such propositions. — Douglas Alan

Hey Doug!

Okay. I was a bit confused, because I thought you said earlier that propositions were either true or false.

And other examples I alluded to earlier were relative to propositions of self reference and logical necessity, respectively:

1. This statement is false.
2. There is at least one true proposition.

And then there are statements, like Tim Wood alluded to, that are incomplete viz Godel;

1. Socrates: What Plato is about to say is false
Plato: Socrates has just spoken truly

1. Tom cannot prove this statement to be true.

As for the sentence "All events must have a cause", I can see that people may agree or disagree with this statement. Or they may feel that it doesn't have a truth value. But in terms of how logic is to deal with it, I don't see how it is different from any other proposition that might be contentious. — Douglas Alan

In Metaphysics, that's known as a Kantian synthetic a priori proposition. Something beyond pure reason or logic. Both an innate sense of wonderment, and something that can be tested a posteriori; a synthesis of both.

Synthetic propositions are the basis of scientific hypothesizing.

Enjoy!

Hey Doug real quick don't have a lot of time this afternoon but wanted to get back to you. At the risk of redundancy it's worth repeating the infamous Kantian judgement that seems to baffle logicians:
All events must have a cause.

True, false , contingent, undecided...

I can think of many more but we'll have to wait till next week...

So, for knowledge of deity, we are limited to personal intuitions and inferences. — Gnomon

I will definitely check out that link... . And I don't want to derail this thread whatsoever into a religious debate, as it would ruin the so called cosmological thought processes of possibility-no pun intended.

Without getting into all the politics of early church history, prohibitions of texts, lost Gospel's, translation issues, interpretation concerns, literal Fundamentalist sects, extremism, etc. etc.; if only religion could embrace your advice from your above quote... .

The sin of pride has unfortunately clouded many minds from the otherwise good intentions that Religious institutions have to offer. Man having created religion forgets the fallibility of same. Throughout history, we can only wonder what Jesus would have to say about those kinds of things.

Anyway, back to; Design and taking God (not religion per se) seriously... .

I'm not sure what you mean by an "undecided" proposition — Douglas Alan

Just quickly, of course, any judgment or proposition that relates to causation, cosmology, natural science, phenomenology, consciousness, et al.

You know, human condition kinds of stuff.

Hahaha, no. I think it went something like this:

In Tony's New York accent, while in the car with the girl he loved (one of many): " Don't worry 'bout nuttin."

Hi Gnomon!

Not to digress too terribly/off topic, but quickly, in your view:

1. Religion gives ( the concept of ) God a bad name.

Any validity to that?

my view, both of these point to errors in our thinking that stem from the supposed infallibility of Darwinian evolutionary theory in particular. What if procreation is viewed not as an instinct, but rather as a misunderstanding based on ignorance? What if our capacity to commit suicide points to this ‘will to live life’ as a choice we are free to make, rather than a ‘natural’ instinct we overcome? — Possibility

Yes, I agree there. Even if the combination of both Darwinism and timeless existence ( metaphysical abstracts or features of conscious existence) were indesputable, the Genesis of such could still remain unexplained or mysteriously evident. And thus, technically both are inexplicable.

However in our context, metaphysical phenomena ironically enough, not only makes life worth living versus Darwinian instinct, but arguably adds to the mystery of life here and suggests something beyond the natural. Something beyond instinct and survival needs.

So, back to the dichotomy (the need to parse) in order to reach a better understanding using your assertion, which I think is awesome btw, of ignorance ( could also dovetail to the tree of Life metaphor):

1. Love could be a mysterious phenomenon that seeks understanding.

2. The Will to live involves volitional existence.

Did I get those ( metaphysical features) right thus far?

Yes Tim, the question was somewhat rhetorical :wink: .

The short answer is that there are a multitude of propositions that go beyond simple true and false, yes or no, either/or. I just wanted to ask the MIT guy!

proposition can, of course, be "in-itself true" even if it is not rigorously provable. A proposition, if it has a truth value, is either true for false. In and of itself. The world is either as the proposition describes or it is not. — Douglas Alan

What is an undecided proposition?

However, some might be lying. — Gregory

I think the direct correlation or comparison there would be through the use of a Polygraph. :gasp:

Otherwise, empirical methods of psychology can certainly overlap into cognitive science.

To understand the metaphysical aspects of consciousness, I think we need to stop looking at it as an ‘extra ordinary’ relation to being, and rather dissolve being as a set of relations which are themselves a set of relations which are themselves a set of relations - and then look at how all of these relations contribute to conscious existence without assuming definitive entities such as beings/events, objects/organisms, molecules, atoms and particles. Because consciousness is effectively a dissolving of these definitions. — Possibility

Hi Possibility!

Well, I think you might be left with a paradox or quandary of sorts there, and that's ok. I appreciate your partial explanation as to how the metaphysical features of Will and Love might interact. And also, I'm in agreement that " effectively dissolving" " these definitions" results in another dimension of existence. Ironically, acknowledgement of such explanation goes beyond the physical realm of existence (as we know it).

Obvious examples ( as given in the video lecture) is the phenomenon of experiencing the color red and beauty, just to name a few. And so similarly there, how do we experience the will, and how do we experience love? Any number of those, as you suggested, can't be explained thru an exclusive physical theory. Perhaps the only way we can begin, is by thinking of them as ( or pretending as if they were) mutually exclusive first.

And so, very simply, a beginning definition of super natural or extra ordinary would apply if the main reason is relative to the nature of consciousness being inexplicable.

Nonetheless, do you think we can we get close to an explanation about the nature of the will and/or love? In their essence, can we not agree that they are, at the very least, metaphysical features of conscious existence?

First, in an existential way, think of the dichotomy like this:

1. Love or the instinct to procreate
2. The will to live life or commit suicide

This is a long shot and perhaps a little bit different than in your context, but Heraclitus might be a possible source.

Heraclitus’ vision of life is clear in his epigram about changing, using a metaphorical river of flux:

‘We both step and do not step in the same rivers. We are and are not’ .

One interpretation of that passage is that Heraclitus is saying we can’t step into the same river twice. This is because the river is constantly changing.The river changes and so do you. Putting your foot in the river at the same place over and over would be different water each time.

Life is in a constant flux or change of flow much like the metaphorical River... .

Nice post. I happen to agree with your definition of the temporal-ness of time, and the timeless nature of, what I'll call, the concept of [the] eternity in time. I have an interesting video I'll post later about how it's possible a timeless eternal Being can interact with a temporal universe that we live/exist in.

In the meantime, what are your thoughts or theories about metaphysical aspects of consciousness(?). Meaning, if things like the Will or Love, exist metaphysically through our conscious existence, are we filtering that emotive phenomena from somewhere outside of our being, or are we secreting that materially and internally.., or maybe both(?).

I think, if one were to argue that the Will/Love is secreted materially/internally/exclusively, then one would also have to show a Darwinian link. And that's mainly because of the exclusive reliance upon natural processes.

And so just to make a huge leap, is the Will/Love, for instance, a super natural or extra ordinary metaphysical feature of conscious existence?

Creation is an action and an action happens as a reaction, which in turn occurs because of another action. This means that creation or creating and concepts that can only exist in a time-restricted world. As time allows for one moments to be followed by another moment. Imagine time not occurring, so everything is frozen and still. Thinking about this we can tell that this can not give birth to time. So time is timeless. Which makes absolutely no sense. (If there’s an discrepancy then help me out pls) — Leviosa

Gnomon is correct I believe, when he says that the rule only applies to an actor operating within space-time.

However, in addition, the intriguing thing is time itself and infinity, which I think is one in the same as timeless truths such as mathematics, or mathematical abstracts. Think of all of this as a-temporal rather than temporal and contingent and/or causational. That's why many theoretical physicists consider mathematics a quality or feature of the mind of God.

That is, mathematics existing as timeless eternal truth's, a priori. I could be wrong, but I think that's one problem of reconciling a timeless Being to a world of contingency and causation. It relates to something that is outside of time and thus timeless (like other metaphysical abstracts as we've been discussing here).

So the paradox is that in this case, mathematics works so well in defining a contingent universe/ existence/nature, yet is considered a timeless truth ( like irrational numbers ).

Materialists simply assume "turtles all the way down" with their Multiverse hypothesis, for which there is no empirical evidence — Gnomon

Interesting. Spinoza posited that there was a super turtle out of logical necessity. Similarly, he thought that the Universe was one in the same as time itself. And, once again, out of logical necessity.

Which makes me think about abstracts like mathematics and, the laws of physics. Do you think the laws of physics are necessary or contingent?