What I was saying yesterday, I was saying because any discussion about what was before (leading to, resulting in) birth, needs some metaphysical framework or background about that, if metaphysics applies to it. It seems to me that we should, to the extent possible, explain things verbally. If something admits of verbal, logical, factual explanation, then that explanation should be said, before resorting to saying that it’s indeterminate or unknowable.
.
We often hear people instead wanting to just invoke direct work by God, for things like the creation of the Earth, and the creation of the human species. …skipping the effort to explain as much as we can in discussable verbal logical terms that are accessible to us. Shouldn’t we verbally explain as much as possible first?
.
So, there’s a physical mechanism for the creation of the Earth and of the human species. People here would tell a Biblical Literalist that God needn’t have contravened his physical laws to create the Earth and the human species, but could have done so via those laws.
.
At the next level from physics, I say the same thing about metaphysics. When someone wants to invoke unknowability and indeterminacy in metaphysics, I emphasize that definite uncontroversial things can be said about metaphysics, and that we should explain what we can before invoking unknowability or indeterminacy.
.
(Admittedly there’s some indeterminacy in some topics of metaphysics, though, for the most part, definite uncontroversial things can be said.)
.
I’ve been claiming that metaphysics has a lot in common with science, with some of the same requirements and desiderata. Statements, claims, should be supported. Definitions should be clearly-specified and consistently-applied. Assumptions, brute-facts, and unfalsifiable unverifiable propositions are suspect, and discredit a theory, especially if there’s a different proposal that doesn’t have or need those things.
.
And we should express such explanations when they’re available, before asserting unknowability or indeterminacy.
.
But I also emphasize that there’s no reason to believe that metaphysics, verbal discussion or logic describes or governs all of Reality (any more than physics does).
.
Therefore, metaphysics doesn’t contradict Theism, and shouldn’t be objectionable to Theists or, in general, to philosophers who don’t believe that all of Reality is knowable, determinate and discussable. …any more than physics.
.
We explain what we can, and that’s our job, our responsibility—but without believing that we can explain all of Reality.
---------------------
Now, about what was before (in the sense of leading to or resulting in) our birth:
.
Based on what I said yesterday, I don’t think that there was any Nothing for us, before our birth. The fact that there was you or I results from that timeless life-experience possibility-story about our experience.
.
There was some early stage with the unconsciousness of ordinary sleep in which we had the subconscious inclinations, predispositions, feelings, that were those of the person we were later born as.
.
I don’t think we go back any farther than that.
.
Sure, of course non-contradiction among our experiences implies that we of course hear that there were earlier stages and events, going all the way back to biology, ancestry, evolution, and all the way back to the formation of this galaxy—all of which are implied by and can be inferred from the fact that we’re here.
.
I emphasize that all that I said yesterday, and here too, is from a 3rd-person objective point-of-view that doesn’t say anything about what all that was really like. …something that we’d only know from experience, for as far back as we can remember.
.
Michael Ossipoff

I only want to point to the NOTHINGness of the time before we were born. Perhaps contemplating that state of NOTHING will give us insight into what NOTHING is. — TheMadFool

Earlier today I said:

"What was there before, and how and why did this life start?"

"Before" can be taken to mean "leading to" or "resulting in".

So it's reasonable to say "before", even though time is only there as part of a person's life-experience possibility-story, within that story.
.
As for that possibility-story itself, it was/is timelessly there, as a system of abstract facts.

...before you were born, where "before" is taken to mean "leading to" or "resulting in".

That system of inter-referring abstract facts was all that would be needed.

The reason why this life started for you was that there timelessly was/is a life-experience possibility-story about and for you, from your point of view, with you as its protagonist. So that protagonist was the person who you started as, at the beginning of this life. There wasn't any "you" other than that.

The following reincarnation discussion is conjectural, and not part of my metaphysics though it's implied by it.

At the end of this life, you of course won't be the same person you were at the beginning of this life. There'll be different subconscious inclinations, predispositions, etc. But, most likely, for that person, too, there timelessly is a life-experience possibility story that starts out with/for someone just like that.. If so, then the reason why this life started will still obtain at the end of this life, for the person you are then.

As I've been saying, I claim that it's completely indeterminate in principle (not just unknowable) whether or not you lived a life before this one. It isn't true that you did or didn't.

I suggest that the deeper stage of shutdown that I spoke of earlier, when there's no memory or feelings about life, identity, etc. isn't reached by the person who still has inclinations and predispositions for life.

So I suggest that the timeless sleep at the end of lives is only for those very few life-completed people who have no remaining needs, wants, inclinations or un-discharged consequences.

There isn't time, before dinner, to finish this post, to relate it to what we were talking about. I'll continue tomorrow.

Michael Ossipoff

"No one ever experiences Nothing". — Michael Ossipoff

Of course they do, when they are unconscious or asleep and not dreaming. If I may relate, it feels like no duration had transpired. — Rich

What was it like? No, I'm not asking for your experience aferwards, when "it feels like no duration has transpired."

I didn't say that you don't experience a time after there was nothing. I said that you don't experience nothing )

So, what was it like when you were experiencing Nothing?

(...given that an experience is of something :D)


Michael Ossipoff

"Starting point?

" A metaphysics should be based on, start from, something inevitable. No brute facts, no assumptions." — Michael Ossipoff


No assumptions? Really now. A metaphysics that does not contain a single assumption? — creativesoul

Correct.

Show me.

It's the metaphysics that I've been describing here and there. I described it in the post that you're replying to..

By the way, "if" IS followed by an assumption.

You're referring to the "If " premise of an if-then fact.

I call it a "premise".

The metaphysics that I propose doesn't assume that the if-then facts' "if " premises are true.

If I say, "if you strangle your neighbor, you'll go to jail", does that mean that I'm assuming that you're going to strangle your neighbor?

"If you win Power-Ball, you'll be able to buy a 100 foot yacht." When I say that, does that mean that I assume that you're going to win Power-Ball?

No, you probably won't strangle your neighbor or win Power-Ball. I certainly don't assume either of those things.

Michael Ossipoff

I only want to point to the NOTHINGness of the time before we were born. Perhaps contemplating that state of NOTHING will give us insight into what NOTHING is. — TheMadFool

Agreed.

I don't say it quite the way Mark Twain did, but it's of interest.

What was there before, and how and why did this life start?

More in a few minutes or about an hour or so.

Michael Ossipoff

"No one ever experiences Nothing. So, in a metaphysics that's about individual experience, there's no such thing." — Michael Ossipoff


What about the experience of loss, lack, dread, angst? Perhaps these experiences point to a primordial preconceptual phenomenal aquantiance with nothing.
— bloodninja

Ii doubt that.

To me, that sounds pessimistic. Loss, lack,and dread are all firmly part of the world of things and events. As for angst, that's just an ill-defined affliction limited to some philosophers.

But yes, you're right when you suggest that, though we never really experience Nothing, there's at least one time when we approach it.

As I've often said, at the end of lives, at the latest stage of shutdown, just before full shutdown of awareness, we probably don't remember that there ever was such a thing as worldly life, body, identity, events or time. ...or such things as menace, loss, lack, or dread.

That's why I disagree with your suggestion of implicating or blaming Nothing, for those negative feelings.

On the contrary, I suggest that, to the extent that we approach Nothing, we're free of those negativities.

As I've said, of course at the late stage of shutdown that I referred to above, full shutdown of awareness (our complete shutdown from the point of view of our survivors) is immanent. But we won't know that, or care, because we'll have reached timelessness. The immanence of complete shutdown is therefore quite irrelevant and meaningless from our point of view.

A life is finite. Even if we live a finite number of finite lives, that's still finite. ...while the approach to Nothing at the end of lives is timeless.

One dictionary definition of "Natural" is "usual or ordinary". Well, which is more "usual", something finite, or something timeless?

So, arguably the timeless sleep at the end of lives is what's natural, and maybe our lives in this changeful temporal world of events should be called the "Supernatural". :D

I've been saying that our world of experience is a hypothetical life-experience possibility-story, consisting of a complex system of inter-referring abstract if-then facts about hypotheticals. I call that "something", and "real", because it's real in the context of our (temporary, finite) lives.

But, due to its temporariness and finiteness, could that purely hypothetical system of abstract facts be argued to be less real than the Nothing that we approach, but don't reach, in the timeless sleep at the end of lives?

Michael Ossipoff

Gods could become causally unnecessary but still exist. The disputed claim is whether they are really causally dispensable — Andrew4Handel

Obviously we should try to explain as much as possible in verbal, discussable terms. Metaphysics is the verbal discussion-topic that takes verbal description to its limit of validity.

I don't use the name "God", except when answering others who do. (Here, they're overwhelmingly Atheists). When I say God, without quotes, I'm referring to the God referred to by people who more or less agree with me.

But when people who more or less agree with me use the name "God", the God that they're referring to isn't an element of metaphysics. And, to say that the God they're referring to is a "being", would be anthropormophic.

There's no reason to believe that logic, physics or metaphysics describes or governs all of Reality.

The devoted belief that science and logic are all-encompassing and universally applicable is a presumptuous article of faith of the usual typical pseudoscientist Atheist.

By the way, the notion of "creation" is anthropomorphic.

Michael Ossipoff

I’d said:
.

You have the astounding presumption to judge the defined-ness of other people’s beliefs based on the fact that they haven’t been defined to you.
.
There are many Theists, of many descriptions. Do you really presume to know all of their beliefs or positions, or what they mean in their communications with eachother (but not with you)?

.
Where have I said in my post that theism is undefined?
.
Just here:
.
I’d said:
.

Yes, Harry, and admittedly without a definition, you still argue against &/or presume to evaluate what you don't have a definition of.

.
You commented:
.

I don't see anyone is arguing against or evaluating the thing that is undefined, what is being argued against or evaluated is this action/activity of believing in a thing that is not clearly defined.

.
So you were referring to an “act” of believing in something not clearly defined. There was exactly one belief that Harry had alleged wasn’t clearly-defined. That was the topic of that exchange that you were replying to.
.
So you weren’t referring to that? :D
.
You continued on the same subject:
.

Now you could justifiably make an argument that believing in a thing that is not clearly defined is OK, but it is not unreasonable in the way you claim to argue that believing in a thing that is undefined is not sensible. We may not know what the thing is, but we know what 'believing' means and we know what 'undefined' means, so all the terms in the statement "believing in things that are undefined is not sensible" are fully understood by the person making the claim.

.
I answered that comment in my previous reply to you. As I said, for something to not be defined to you doesn’t mean that it isn’t defined. …especially when there are diverse completely different “definitions”, and the diversity is so great that it’s presumptuous for you to even think you know what “believe” means in all those varied contexts.
.

All I have said is that it is perfectly rational to argue that belief in that which is undefined is not sensible.

.
You’re repeating yourself. You already said that, and when you did, I pointed out that your not knowing what someone else believes doesn’t make their belief undefined. Did those people, who don’t know you, forget to define their belief to you? :D
.
So, that explains why you attribute to all Theists, the anthropomorphic beliefs expressed by the heavily-proselytizing, promotional, evangelistic Biblical-Literalists—the Theists that you’re familiar with.
.
Overgeneralizing about people is scalled bigotry..
.

I did not once provide any examples at all of "things which are undefined", let alone presume that 'all of theism' is one such thing.

.
As I said, in that discussion, exactly one Harry was claiming undefinedness for exactly one thing, saying that Theist belief, in general, is undefined. That was the topic of that discussion.
.
If you weren’t referring to that, then how odd that you’d post your statement at that point in that discussion.
.
But I’m not going to debate that. That’s enough on that subtopic.
.
But this thread-topic is “Dishonest Philosophy”, and so, in a funny way, your protestation here is appropriate—right on topic :D

.
Pseudonym says:
.

As usual with theist apologists that I've experienced, one gets even close to their fragile construct of the world and they fly off the handle. This has happened with literally every theist (bar one professor of theology) that I've ever conversed with.

.
…or could it be that maybe they’re tired of people who presume to speak for them?
.
….people who uniformly characterize a large and diverse group of people as all Biblical Literalists, or believers in anthropomorphic allegory, identifying all Theists with the more familiar and numerous dogmatic Biblical Literalists.

You know, the ones whose God is your One-True-God.
.
…while claiming that positions, beliefs or faith that you don’t know, must be undefined (otherwise how else could you not know them :D )
.
And, though that behavior is common, I don’t usually say anything—It’s so common that there wouldn’t nearly be enough time to always, or even often, answer it. But once in a while, I like to say something.
.
I’d said:
.

Do you really presume to know all of their beliefs or positions, or what they mean in their communications with eachother (but not with you)?

.
Pseudonym’s answer:
.

I do not need to know all of their beliefs to draw conclusions about the beliefs I've so far been exposed to

.
Fine. Draw conclusions about the beliefs of the people who have told you their beliefs. Limit your conclusions to them.

Hey, there’s a new idea! :D

You know, evidence-based :D
.

, It is a perfectly normal part of human rational investigation.

.
Yes, and it’s common. It’s called bigotry.
.
“Rational”? Well, maybe not :D Drawing conclusions about the beliefs of people other than the ones whose beliefs you’ve heard about.
.
Well, but what other Atheist activity is there? :D
.

. We draw conclusions about the colour of Swans based on all the swans we've ever seen, we draw conclusions about the movement of objects in space based on all the objects we've ever tested, you are presuming that your communication system will work based on all the people you've ever communicated with.

.
Yes, classical mechanics was written as a generalization from experience. Though reasonably valid and useful under some conditions (like the conditions of the observations from which it was generalized), it turned out to be not generally correct.
.
Yes, overgeneralizing is a common error, and, in its more repellent form, it’s called bigotry.

.

No-one ever suggests that the person wary of Tigers is being ludicrous because their opinion is only based on all the Tigers they've ever heard of, rather than on all the Tigers that exist.

.
The fact that all tigers are primarily carnivores is well-established. Not all tigers are man-eaters, and you’d be wrong if you assumed that they all are. But the mere fact that some of them sometimes are, is a good reason why prudence dictates avoiding them.
.
Likewise sharks and alligators don’t usually attack people. But, because they sometimes do, it’s probably best to not swim with them.
.
It’s easy to make a sloppy irrelevant analogy.
.
Maybe personal pride motivates some people to somehow convince themselves that they understand, and can categorize, everyone.
.
Michael Ossipoff

Harry Hindu says:
.

What it seems to me is that you simply don't want to hear opposing viewpoints - a symptom of being delusional.

.
I quote that first, because it establishes Harry’s politeness-level, and behavioral-level. …a behavioral-level that’s common among aggressive Science-Worshippers.
.
But I’ll reply to it later in the post, where it occurs.
.
I’d said:
.

Yes, Harry, and admittedly without a definition, you still argue against &/or presume to evaluate what you don't have a definition of.
.
Realistically, in such a situation, the best you can say would be that you disagree with the Biblical Literalists, and that you don't understand what other Theists believe. Does your pride prevent you from admitting that there might be people whom you don't really know?

.
Harry replied:
.

Let me say again, that I used to be a believer AND I have asked these questions to more believers than I can count because they are my family, most of my friends, and people who I don't really know but engage them on the internet in religious discussions. I have met pretty much every flavor of theist/spiritualist and asked them these questions and it's all the same. They fear questioning their beliefs for fear of being punished, or what happens after they die, or what happened to their loved ones who have passed on.

.
No doubt that describes the beliefs of Harry, when he was religious, and the beliefs others like him that he refers to.
.
But Harry wants to insult all Theists by implying that they’re like he was.
.

If someone can't clearly define something, why would you believe in it?!

.
If someone is promoting a belief to you, but refuses to define it, then there’s no reason to believe it.
.
In fact, what it would it mean to speak of believing it when you don’t know what it is? :D
.
That would be almost as stupid as criticizing it when you don’t know what it is.
.
Maybe there are Theists who don’t know Harry, and, for some reason, haven’t gotten around to defining their religion to him. :D
.
Evidently Harry lacks the modesty to not presume to evaluate what he doesn’t know.
.

The fact is that any definition of God is preposterous and inconsistent.

.
My, aren’t we authoritative and all-knowing! :D
.
Well, what Harry knows is that his definition of God was preposterous an inconsistent, and likewise his friends’ definition of God.
.

Why could it not be that highly intelligent aliens had a hand in our evolution on this planet, by playing "god"?

.
There are those who believe that. Believe it if you like.
.

How do we know that what believers call "God" is really a god? What makes one a god?

.
Harry doesn’t know what all Theists call “God”. He’s using his former religious self as the poster-child.
.
I’d said:
.

Here's a hint: Religion isn't about proof, argument, logic, convincing or teaching. It's more a matter of impressions, and not everyone's impressions are the same as yours. And no, that doesn't make your impressions superior.

Exactly. Religion isn't about truth. It's about making one feel better in the face of all life's unfairness.

.
Well, Harry can speak for what religion was for him, when he was religious. And maybe for his friends and others with whom he’s talked.

.

Who would you believe more, or who would you say has a better case - the prosecutor that uses evidence and logic to find the criminal, or the prosecutor that uses "impressions"?

.
Evidently Harry thinks that logic describes and governs all of Reality.
.
Evidence?
.
We’re getting ahead of ourselves, Cowboy. Evidence for what? Harry doesn’t know what Theists (other than the one that he was, and his friends, and other dogmatic Biblical-Literalists) believe, much less whether they have evidence for it.
.

That is part of my point - that theists use logic and reason for pretty much figuring out everything else, but throw that out the window when contemplating god. Why is that and why the inconsistency?

.
See above. Harry thinks that logic describes and governs all of Reality.
.
That’s part of Science-Worship, the pseudoscience that tries to apply scientific principles beyond science’s legitimate range of applicability.
.

You're totally wrong about religion not being about convincing or teaching. Proselytizing is part of the religious playbook.

.
…part of Harry’s playbook, when he was religious. But not everyone is like Harry. Oh, his friends are? Ok.

.

And I'm not the one starting threads attacking theists. They are the ones starting threads questioning atheists

.
This thread wasn’t about religion, but it was hijacked to express the usual pseudoscientific Science-Worshipper line, regarding religion.
.
It always sounds the same, word-for-word.
.
Do you all get it from the same hymn-book?
.

and the use of logic itself, as if they never used it and found it useful in finding truths!

.
See above.
.
I’d said:
.

Why this need to evaluate others?

.
Harry says:
.

Of course I can evaluate them. Like I said, I was one and am surrounded by them.

.
I never meant to imply that Harry can’t evaluate himself, his friends, his co-religionists, and other dogmatic Biblical-Literalists, whom he knew and knows very well.
.
But, as I said, he wants to insult all Theists, by claiming that they’re like he was.
.

You don't know most atheists and yet you make these blanket accusations, as if you do. Take some your own advice.

.
But I know what the loud Atheists say, and that they say it from ignorance, with the astounding presumption that they know the beliefs of all Theists.
.
There’s no need to speculate on what the loud Atheist believes—he shares it most willingly. …such as the belief that logic describes and governs all Reality, and his belief about the beliefs of others whom he doesn’t know.
.
Harry says:

And if we should worry ourselves about our own beliefs, then why participate in a philosophy forum.

If Harry wants to participate in a philosophy forum, then it would be better to do so rationally.
.

What it seems to me is that you simply don't want to hear opposing viewpoints

.
I merely mention that Harry’s “viewpoints” are unsupported.
.

- a symptom of being delusional.

Namecalling is always the eventual resort, for people who have no better argument or support for what they say.

Loud, irrational forum-participation, usually arrives at namecalling. The pseudoscientists known as Science-Worshippers are a common example.

Incompetence is commonly associated with namecalling behavior.

By the way, before Harry Hindu became an Atheist, was he (at least in his opinion) a Hindu?

Is (or was) Harry really a (self-declared) Hindu? I’d expect that if Harry shared his opinions with Hindus, he’d be laughed off the stage.

…or is this just the usual log-in-name role-playing?

Michael Ossipoff

I’d said:
.

Yes, Harry, and admittedly without a definition, you still argue against &/or presume to evaluate what you don't have a definition of.

.
You replied:
.

I don't see anyone is arguing against or evaluating the thing that is undefined, what is being argued against or evaluated is this action/activity of believing in a thing that is not clearly defined.

.
Not clearly defined to you. You’re criticizing an action/activity without a definition of what is believed.
.
If someone is promoting a religion or religious denomination to you, then they should define it for you. The door-to-door denominational-promoters do that, of course. But no one else is obligated to.

.

Now you could justifiably make an argument that believing in a thing that is not clearly defined is OK

.
Believing in something that isn’t clearly defined to you is definitely ok.
.

, but it is not unreasonable in the way you claim to argue that believing in a thing that is undefined is not sensible.

.
It’s irrational to make that claim about beliefs that you don’t even know. ...or to presume to evaluate its defined-ness, merely because you yourself don't have a definition of it.
.

We may not know what the thing is, but we know what 'believing' means and we know what 'undefined' means, so all the terms in the statement "believing in things that are undefined is not sensible" are fully understood by the person making the claim.

.
You have the astounding presumption to judge the defined-ness of other people’s beliefs based on the fact that they haven’t been defined to you.
.
There are many Theists, of many descriptions. Do you really presume to know all of their beliefs or positions, or what they mean in their communications with eachother (but not with you)?
.
Maybe you’re saying that you want to understand other people’s beliefs. If so, you need a better approach.
.
Michael829

You said:
.

I'm not clear why your post, which ends for some reason with a quote from me…

.
I quoted part of your post because, along with Harry’s post, it was what I was replying to.
.

…, has as its final remark the one above , after you have spent quite a few paragraphs claiming to evaluate others.

.
Please note that I didn’t evaluate your beliefs, and I have no inclination or interest in doing so. I was merely evaluating the manners and presumption of aggressive Atheists.
.

I don't see how we would have reasoned discussion without commenting on others' evaluations, and responding with evaluations of our own. That's surely what you are doing?

.
I wasn’t evaluating your beliefs regarding religion. My criticism was of the manners and presumption of aggressive Atheists.
.
My point was that it’s irrational to “evaluate” what you don’t know. Aggressive Atheists want to lump all Theists together, for a blanket criticism of their beliefs. The aggressive Atheist’s One True God is the God of the Biblical-Literalists.
.
If the evaluation and criticism were explicitly limited to Biblical-Literalism, then that would be more rational.
.
Certainly there are certain Theists who are aggressively promoting and pushing their Biblical-Literalism on you, when they go door-to-door, show up at your door, and get rude and bullying. I’d be glad to hear you criticize their rudeness and aggressiveness, and I’d agree.

I don't like aggressive bad-manners from any persuasion.
.

I hope I'm not an 'aggressive atheist'. I usually find myself disagreeing with Harry Hindu about materialist and scientific matters, though we're both atheists. I was educated without any belief in gods or God

.
I was raised Atheist. Later I questioned and eventually abandoned that faith.
.

, and my 69 years haven't brought me any closer to such a belief.

.
…as is your right. I wouldn’t presume to tell you what to believe.
.

My atheism, looked at in this way, seems more an absence of belief, rather than anything stronger.

.
Then you aren’t an Atheist. You’re an Agnostic. It’s very typical now for people to call themselves “Atheist”, while espousing Agnosticism. Nearly always, such “Agnostic Atheists” will soon be making Atheist claims, having evidently forgotten that they’ve just finished expressing an Agnostic position.
.
But when someone claims to know better than Theists, and imply that they’re illogical or irrational to not feel as he does, then he isn’t being very Agnostic. Saying that one knows better is different from saying that one doesn’t know.
.

There isn't a god-shaped hole in my mental universe, which is packed to the brim with thoughts of one kind or another. I do think I have religious feelings

.
Then I’d say you’re religious. You can be religious without showing up on my doorstep and trying to bully me into joining a denomination.
.

…, as I presume nearly everyone has, though they may define them differently. I remain eager to understand how others think and feel

.
Sure, but we just can’t evaluate what we don’t know. And I suggest that, if you want to open a discussion with Theists, you don’t start with premature evaluation. That will likely put them off from talking to you.

You said "...though they may define them differently." Exactly. And that's why one can't validly lump them together for a blanket evaluation.
.
Michael Ossipoff

What were you before you were born? — TheMadFool

There's a Mark Twain quote that I like:

"I was dead for millions of years before I was born, and it didn't inconvenience me a bit."

I like it, but it isn't what I'd say.

If you believe that you didn't exist in any sense before you were born, then that time isn't in your experience, and therefore, in an experiential metaphysics, there was no such time. And that answers that question.

But I don't say it that way.

I've been saying that the reason why you're in a life is because, among the inevitable infinity of life-experience possibility-storys, there's one in which you're the protagonist. There isn't/wasn't any "you" other than that. This life of yours is that possibility-story and you're that protagonist.

And I suggest that that's true whether or not there's reincarnation, and whether or not you had a previous life.

As I've said elsewhere, I claim that reincarnation is unprovable, and that, if there's reincarnation, the matter of whether or not you've already had lives is indeterminate--It isn't true that you either did or didn't.

It seems to me that there's probably reincarnation, because it's implied by an uncontroversial metaphysics.

Michael Ossipoff

Aggressive public-arguing Atheists tend to be devout believers in the religion of Science-Worship, and in the metaphysics of Materialism (though, according to the vagaries of fashion, they might call it "Naturalism" or even "Nominalism");

But aggressive Atheists have another attribute: They need to compare themselves to someone else, to whom they can claim superiority. That's a common feature of human nature, maybe related to the aggressive chimpanzee heritage.

But, unless they're only talking about Biblical-Literalists (...and if they are, they need to say so), they're criticizing beliefs that they don't know, and can't define. As an Atheist, as you criticizing the belief of every Theist? You don't know every Theist. Did you know that they aren't all Biblical-Literalists?

So, Atheism is a peculiar belief, a belief that is a denial of...something that that belief's adherents don't specify or know.

...as exemplified below:

God hasn't been defined clearly — Harry Hindu

Yes, Harry, and admittedly without a definition, you still argue against &/or presume to evaluate what you don't have a definition of.

Realistically, in such a situation, the best you can say would be that you disagree with the Biblical Literalists, and that you don't understand what other Theists believe. Does your pride prevent you from admitting that there might be people whom you don't really know?

Here's a hint: Religion isn't about proof, argument, logic, convincing or teaching. It's more a matter of impressions, and not everyone's impressions are the same as yours. And no, that doesn't make your impressions superior.

I must admit that I have no idea why you feel a need to evaluate what you don't understand. I know this sounds trite, but it's alright to mind one's own business.

and we've had 4000 years to do it. How would we know if we experienced God or not? What would be the evidence. Indirect evidence can be skewed to support one's own delusions. This is why you also need direct evidence. Without it, it would be illogical and unreasonable to change one's life or world view based on indirect evidence.

Then Harry says:

I'd rather say, "I don't know." simply because that would be more accurate than to say that I do know that God exists.

You would? Then why don't you? That might be less irrational than evaluating what you don't know.

That is the problem with most theists. They find it disconcerting to say, "I don't know."

But you don't know most Theists, though you seem to claim to know enough about them to evaluate them.

Maybe admit that you don't know? ...and maybe concern yourself instead with your own beliefs, investigations, study, etc.

Why this need to evaluate others?

That is why they fill the gaps in their knowledge with God. I don't seem to have that fear of the unknown. I actually find the notion that we don't know exhilarating. It leaves room to make discoveries, which is what life is about.

but that doesn't involve 'an intelligent sentient volitional creator' - who, to an atheist like me, is probably just the brain-child of some people in quite a small part of West Asia 2-3000 years ago. — mcdoodle

The reason I embrace Mind as First Cause it's because it is right there, within everyone. There is no need to develop or appeal to outside causes such as God, gods, Laws of Nature, or a Big Bang.

It is interesting though that people do attempt to downplay or eliminate their own minds in favor of some active outside force that hypothetical it's guiding them or determining every action. I often wonder why? I can only think that people are more comfortable with outside forces guiding them, a la parents. — Rich

What it amounts to is that you're just espousing Anti-Realist metaphysics, as do many of us, including me, ...a metaphysics that is about individual subjective experience, and takes it, and us, as primary.

I describe it as the individual's life-experience possibility-story, which, consisting of inevitable abstract if-then facts, doesn't need any explanation.

I feel that brute-facts or assumptions are to be avoided in metaphysics.

Your positing of Mind as something separate from body is problematic. You've explained it in terms of quantum-field, but that would mean that you're saying that a brute-fact physical world is primary.

Michael Ossipoff

Sentience is the property of being a purposefully-responsive device, as are people and other animals.

Michael Ossipoff

About whether the mass-density in a black hole is infinite, here's a quote from the Internet. Of course I should state the source of the quote, and it's sloppy not to. It's just that, when that occurred to me, I was too lazy to go back and write down the source.

Here's the quote:

It will continue to collapse, and the gravity increases. Smaller, smaller… and when I was a kid I always read that it collapses all the way down to a geometric dot, an object with no dimensions at all. That really bugged me, as you can imagine… as well it should. Because it’s wrong.

At some point, the collapsing core will be smaller than an atom, smaller than a nucleus, smaller than an electron. It’ll eventually reach a size called the Planck Length, a unit so small that quantum mechanics rules it with an iron fist. A Planck Length is a kind of quantum size limit: if an object gets smaller than this, we literally cannot know much about it with any certainty. The actual physics is complicated, but pretty much when the collapsing core hits this size, even if we could somehow pierce the event horizon, we couldn’t measure its real size. In fact, the term "real size" doesn’t really mean anything at this kind of scale. If the Universe itself prevents you from measuring it, you might as well say the term has no meaning.

And how small is a Planck Length? Teeny tiny: about 10-35 meters. That’s one one-hundred quintillionth the size of a proton.

[endquote]

Michael Ossipoff

I would say that in order for an afterlife to be possible - at least as the same person we are/were while living - thought and belief would need to be somehow preserved even after physiological sensory perception has ceased. That would require disembodied cognition. So, I do not believe that an afterlife is possible, at least not as the same person/being/entity. — creativesoul

Even during death, you never reach a time when there isn't experience. You don't experience the time after your complete shutdown. Only your survivors experience that time.

For you, there's no such thing as a time when you don't experience.

"To sleep, perchance to dream"

That could (and eventually must, pretty much everyone agrees) consists of entry into a deep sleep in which there's no knowledge or memory that there was, or even could be, such a thing as life, identity, events or time.

Quiet peaceful sleep.

Of course complete shutdown soon follows, from other people's point of view, but not in your experience. Anyway you won't know or care about your temporariness then, having reached timelessness.

Since none of us have been there (at least not that we remember), it would be difficult to reliably say more.

It depends on your metaphysics If there's a reason why you're in this life, and if that reason remains at the end of this life, then what would that suggest?

Michael Ossipoff

Starting point?

A metaphysics should be based on, start from, something inevitable. No brute facts, no assumptions.

I suggest that abstract if-then facts, and therefore complex inter-referring systems of them, are inevitable.

Someone could say, "But would there be those, if there were no experiencers? If not, then they aren't inevitable".

That doesn't follow. Among the infinity of complex systems of inter-referring abstract if-then facts, there are inevitably some (like the one whose events and relations are those of your experience) that consist of a life-experience possibility-story.

Those systems of if-then abstract facts are inevitable. They don't need objective or global "reality" or "exisitence", or any medium in which to be. They're mutually applicable and valid in their own local inter-referring system.

For the purpose of this discussion, we can ignore the other abstract facts and systems of them, and skip the issue of whether, without an experiencer, they "are".

Michael Ossipoff

There are many forms of exaggeration (even in the pop books) and most everyone just goes along with it because why put their neck out on the line. Anyone who protests is quickly ejected. No different than any profession where big money is at stake. Hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil. Just pretend it's not happening. — Rich

Sometimes it seems to me that there's a bit of exaggeration of science's needs and goals. Though I'm not anti-science, I don't support everything science does.

I opposed the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). I oppose the Parker solar probe (It's scheduled to be launched this year). I oppose the Nazi-esque harmful medical experimentation and product-testing on live animals.

Michael Ossipoff

That sort of misses my point. A philosopher saying he doesn't believe in metaphysics is like a fish saying she doesn't believe in water. — T Clark

Quite so.

Michael Ossipoff

The truth is nobody knows enough about the Universe and beyond to make concrete conclusions about metaphysical things. Until then, everybody is free to make preconceived beliefs about these topics.

— Starthrower

Why should metaphysics depend on physics, scientific information about this physical universe?

Definite uncontroversial things can be said about metaphysics.

Michael Ossipoff

you can't get away from metaphysics. You can't be agnostic. — T Clark

Sure, I'd say that most people who claim to reject metaphysics actually espouse the metaphysics of Materialism.

Michael Ossipoff

Forget the theism/atheism debate here. I ask everyone, theists and atheists: does the concept of a being from before time creating everything make sense? If so, why? If not, why? — Starthrower

You know that not all Theists believe that God is a "creature", right? A creature is something or someone that has been created.

In fact not all Theists say that God is a being, or an element of metaphysics. Existence is a metaphysical term (...but, incidentally, a metaphysical term that lacks a metaphysical definition).

The notion of "Creation" is anthropomorphic.

But sure, a lot of Theists believe the allegory. That allegory is the only Theism that most here have heard of. The preachy Theists, like the ones who knock on your door, are the most staunch believers in that allegory, in its extreme Biblical-Literalist version, and so that's what you hear about, and that's what Theism means to most people.

Above I mentioned the notion of God being a being. That's anthropomorphic too.

Anyway, non-Literalists don't promote, proselytize or preach. I don't regard religion as a matter to convince anyone about.

If you're curious about non-allegorical, non-anthropomorphic, non-Literalist Theism, then maybe googling "Negative Theology" would bring up some references.

Michael Ossipoff

No one ever experiences Nothing. So, in a metaphysics that's about individual experience, there's no such thing.

Michael Ossipoff

I'd say you're right.

Yes, that (probably unconscious) bias, and primarily rhetorical, argument-winning-no-matter-what, purpose seems to always be present in metaphysical discussions. That just seems to be the way it is.

When I hear arguments against something I've said, I take them seriously enough to say, with as many words as necessary, how I answer it. ...to explain why I hadn't considered it a problem, &/or now don't.

But I don't want to give a rhetorical, trial-lawyier-like answer, playing to convince an audience, if there isn't a sincere reason why I really don't consider the objection a problem.

Michael Ossipoff

Sure, there are a small minority of scientists who have allowed themselves to be bought, and hired to say that there's no human-caused climate change. Likewise the cigarette companies never found a lack of purchasable scientists to publish favorable studies about cigarettes.

But those are the exceptions. Only a very tiny minority of scientists are on the industrial climate-denial payroll. Scientists are nearly entirely unanimous about the impendiing human-caused climate disaster.

Michael Ossipoff

Right. Trust them scientists ... to exaggerate all claims. — Rich

A lot of scientists understandably believe that science explains everything. You can't blame them. They've mastered a very complicated and difficult subject, and it's natural to have a feeling that it's everything.

Certainly not all--but some--scientists are Scientificists (Science-Worshippers). Of course a lot of people who aren't scientists are Science-Worshippers too.

You, Rich, have accused me of being one (a Science-Worshlpper, not a scientist). I'm not. All Science-Worshippers are Materialists (aka "Naturalists". ...and sometimes "Nominalist" is used to mean effectively the same thing as "Materialist"). I'm not a Materialist. You've heard my metaphysics.

But where you, Rich, are making a mistake is to not accept that scientists are right about their own field,

I personally feel that Western academic philosophy is bullsh*t, but physicists and other scientists are experts in an objective and solid subject, even if a few take it outside its legitimate range of applicability and claim that the material world that they study is all of Reality.

Michael Ossipoff

After my previous post, I should emphasize that, though I don't know general relativity, I'm sure that many would agree that Pierre-Normand sounds like he knows what he's talking about. So I didn't mean to claim that no one here, or in this discussion, knows modern physics. .

I just meant that it's just a subject that few people are qualified in, even if a there are a few here who are.

Michael Ossipoff

.

What I meant to say was just that modern physics--general relativity, quantum mechanics, etc. is really a complicated, involved specialized subject, and one best left to its specialists.

Only a physicist, or maybe someone advanced in a physics curriculum will know what's going on at the frontiers of physics, what those subjects are about. There's really no point in our debating those matters here.

Michael Ossipoff

Of course I've got Tegmark agreeing with me too, about something else--that this universe consists of abstract facts, along with infinitely-many such possibility-worlds. (It's in this physical world that he's saying that there aren't infinities).

Whether this universe is infinite or not is a detail of the setting of our life-experience-stories. The remarkable thing is that this life started.

I seem to remember from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance that rhetoric is regarded as one of the lesser arts. Reasoning for the purpose of winning an argument is inferior to reasoning for the purpose of discovering truth. If I understood all that correctly. — fishfry

I'm sure that's right. i hadn't heard it, and the matter hadn't occurred to me like that, but now that you mention it, of course it's true. There's too much argumentativeness here, where discussion should be civil and just have the goal of collectively finding out.

Michael Ossipoff

Fine. While you are waiting, why don't you do some reading also. — Rich

Just check your facts before you post. It will result in a smoother and more peaceful discussion. You're getting aggressively-assertive, when you're mistaken. Surely you want to avoid that.

In general, it's best to stay civil.

Michael Ossipoff

Or, a person on Earth could look at the spaceship and conclude that the Earth is accelerating away from the spaceship. — Rich

The distinction between uniform and accelerated motion, relating to why only the spaceship experiences time-dilation, and why its clocks read slow when compared to ours, is commonly discussed in typical articles on this subject.

Michael Ossipoff

I'd said;

"The spaceship's engines are accelerating the spaceship [not the Earth]",

Rich says:

You won't find "Spaceship engines" as a variable in any Relativity equations. — Rich

Regardless of what's accelerating the spaceship, it's being accelerated to (and then back from) high speed with respect to the Earth. It's the spaceship, and not the Earth that's being accelerated.

When an equation in physics includes a force or an acceleration, the equation doesn't typically specify or label the origin of the force, or the name of the thing that caused the force.

Rich says:

The rest is literally Sci Fi.

I would remind Rich that interstellar travel was the topic of the thread's original post.

Maybe a better example of science fiction is Rich's incredible mis-statements about physics.

Rich is referring to this:

As for interstellar travel, if our civilization ever achieves fast interstellar travel, we'll probably have good enough robotic technology by then, that there won't be a need for humans to be on the starship. — Michael Ossipoff

Prominent computer scientists predict advances in robotics, on a timescale shorter than the timescale predicted by phyicists for feasible interstellar travel.

A long time ago, the radio astronomer, Bracewell, discussed the obvious likely eventual feasibility of robotic interstellar probes.

Physicists say that interstellar vehicles are still very far off. That statement, too, isn't science-fiction.

I continued:

The robotic probes will, by that time, be able to find out all that we want to know from visits to other solar-systems.

Hardly a doubtful sci-fi suggestion, given the planetary probes that have recently been in use.

Of course it will take a long time, and so, as you said, it would have to be done as a longterm investment, (if at all).

Even at near-relativistic speeds, it would take a long time to get results from interstellar probes.

Yes I was talking about something that couldn't be feasible and worthwhile to do for a long time. (Arthur Clarke has pointed out that any interstellar probe that could be sent any time soon would be passed-up by faster ones sent out later.)

I don't consider it at all certain that there will be any reason, or perceived reason, or motivation, to do interstellar travel, or probes, even when it becomes more feasible.

Michael Ossipoff

Not necessarily. Because of Special Theory of Relativity's Receprocity one can say that Earth is accelerating away from the spaceship, so it is the clocks in the Earth that are slowing down. — Rich

No. There's no such principle. The spaceship's engines are accelerating the spaceship, not the Earth.

Time dilation has been observed in various ways. It has been observed that less time transpired in the system that was accelerated to high speed, in comparison to an unaccelerated system. ...when their clocks were compared later.

Shouldn't we leave physics to the physicists?

We live in a culture in which science is important and highly valued. Therefore, there's a strong tendency to worship science. That's our culture's main religion now.

As for interstellar travel, if our civilization ever achieves fast interstellar travel, we'll probably have good enough robotic technology by then, that there won't be a need for humans to be on the starship.

The robotic probes will, by that time, be able to find out all that we want to know from visits to other solar-systems.

Of course it will take a long time, and so, as you said, it would have to be done as a longterm investment, (if at all).

I don't believe that just because something becomes technically possible it should be done.

Michael Ossipoff

Tegmark used to say that it the universe was likely infinite. I myself don't claim to have information about that.

Maybe Tegmark has good justification, now, for saying that it isn't.

You mentioned a mathematical argument about that. It was an area that isn't familiar to me, so I can't say I disagree.

So maybe there's some reason why it can be known that the universe isn't infinite, but I don't know about it.

Michael Ossipoff

I also don't share your desire for them to solve our problems for us. Seems to me they are as likely to make things worse as better. — T Clark

It would be great if we had a chance to find out, because the situation is otherwise obviously quite hopeless for society and planet. (Not that I expect that help, for the reasons that I described).

I'd expect advanced civilizations to be morally advanced too. I mentioned how often a person will rescue a drowning insect. Some people expect aliens to be monsters because that's all they're used to, in our society. It's natural to expect aliens to be like the genuine villains here, but there isn't really a reason to expect that.

Michael Ossipoff

Another way to say this is, I've been emphasizing that the person hirself (himself/herself) is part of hir life-experience possibility-story. ...but is obviously its essential, central component, as its protagonist, whose experience it's about.

So my metaphysics doesn't require that facts exist independent of experiencers. The system of facts, and the experiencer who is part of that system can be regarded as timelessly being there together, as a complementary unit, a system of inter-referring if-thens.

And, all along, I've been emphasizing that the complex system of inter-referring inevitable abstract if-then facts that is someone's life-experience possibility-story doesn't need to have global or objective existence. It needn't be considered other than in its own local inter-referring system.

Neither does it need some sort of global permission to be, or some larger context or medium in which to be.

For the purpose of my metaphysics, doesn't that avoid any problem about the existence of the facts? They're relevant only to eachother.

Of course, without an experiencer, you could ask for whom it's all real, and what it means to say it's real. But that doesn't matter, because this life-experience possibility-story is about an experiencer, its central, essential, primary component.

I don't know if I've made the point strongly enough, about the complete local independence of that experience possibility-story, that system of inter-referring if-thens, and that I'm not saying that it meaningfully "is", outside of its own context, or for anyone other than the experiencer who is part of that system of inter-referring facts.

No one can deny that that system of inter-referring if-thens is there for itself and eachother, can they? I mean, the facts are only about eachother.
----------------------------------------

That metaphysics that i propose is Anti-Realism, compared to MUH.

But, quite aside from all that, I do claim a sort of Realism, as argued in the numbered list of reasons that i stated in my other post.

It seems to me, then, that the "Realism"/"Anti-Realism" distinction might not be really useful.or always applicable.

Michael Ossipoff.

Well, I should comment on this:

disagree, if anything I think it's merely a semantic tautology which has no meaning or provenance outside human discourse. I don't think it's helpful to think of tautologies as facts; facts must be substantive. — Janus

There's certainly a sense in which a tautology isn't useful in a practical way, But they're certainly useful for illustrating other things,.making other points. ...as in this discussion.Tautologies are of course never surprising or very informative.

Even if there were Slitheytoves and Jaberwockeys, my if-then fact about them wouldn't surprise anyone.

But it was only intended as an easily shown example of an inevitable abstract if-then fact.

Surely "If the associative axiom is true for the integers under the operation of addition, then 2+2=4 (with the definitions that I've stated)" is a fact (...as are the if-then facts about physical quantities and physical laws.) and you wouldn't deny that.

The "then" provably follows directly from the "if".

It differs from the Slithytoves & Jaberwockeys if-then fact only in degree of obviousness, and amount of wording needed to demonstrate that it's a fact.

I do admit that insofar as they are expressed in languages all facts have a tautologous dimension to them, though.

Yes, so it's artificial to draw a line among them, regarding which ones you agree are facts.

It just means that some inevitable timeless abstract if-then facts (the ones that are tautologies) are simpler and more obvious than others..

Michael Ossipoff

I disagree, if anything I think it's merely a semantic tautology which has no meaning or provenance outside human discourse. I don't think it's helpful to think of tautologies as facts; facts must be substantive. — Janus

That would be a good place at which for us to agree to disagree.

Michael Ossipoff

I’d said:
.

That’s why I say that it would be animal-chauvinistic to say that the only abstract facts that are valid are the ones that are in someone’s experience. That would only be so if you define validity as “experienced by someone”. That would be distinctly un-objective, It would also be something made true only by a special definition that says that it’s true.

— Michael Ossipoff
.
You replied:
.

When you demonstrate that animals other than human beings understand abstract facts, …

.
No, I didn’t say that animals other than humans understand abstract facts. But some animals understand abstract facts. Humans are the animals that are known to understand abstract facts.
.
“Animal chauvinism” referred to a belief by animals (human ones) that only what’s experienced by animals (like us) is valid. …an unnecessary and unwarranted over-generalization of Anti-Realism.
.
You continued:
.

Regardless though, this wouldn't help support your assumption that the world prior to the existence of life consisted of abstract facts.

.
1. I emphasize that that issue or assumption isn’t important for my metaphysical proposal, which is about individual experience. Though I disagree with absolute Anti-Realism, it doesn’t contradict my proposal.

2. It goes without saying that you’re free to and welcome to have a different opinion (in favor of absolute Anti-Realism). I’ve merely told why I don’t agree with that position.
.
As I’ve said my reasons for that are these:
.
1. To say that only facts that are experienced by an animal (like us) are valid, because “valid” means (at least in part) “experienced by someone”, is an instance of saying that something true because of the choice of a definition that says that it’s true.
.
2. The abstract facts that constitute your life-experience possibility-story aren’t really different from all of the other abstract facts.
.
3. Inevitable abstract if-then facts (of which I’ve given a few examples) are true, when evaluated for truth or falsity, by anyone anywhere anytime. Ancient Greece, or now, or on another planet, in another galaxy, in a different sub-universe of a physically-inter-related multiverse of which our Big-Bang Universe is a part…or even in an entirely different possibility-world.
.
Given that, there’s obviously something to those facts that is independent of the experiencer.
-----------------
But, as I said, you’re of course welcome to disagree, and that wouldn’t contradict my metaphysical proposal, which is an Anti-Realism, about individual experience. If you believe that abstract facts are valid only with respect to experiencers, that doesn’t contradict my Anti-Realist metaphysical proposal.
.
I just don’t take Anti-Realism to the extreme that you seem to be saying that you do.
.
I’d said:
.

at least comprehend that your meaning for “is” and “are” contradicts a meaning for them that is routine and standard in mathematics and logic.

— Michael Ossipoff
.

Mathematicians and logician who use "is" and "are" use it to refer to what is the case, now.

.
Incorrect. But let’s just agree to disagree on that, and let others judge for themselves which claim is correct.
.
Continuing to state our claims about that isn’t serving any purpose.
.

It is only metaphysicians who extend this principle, through extrapolation, to make the claim that what mathematicians and logicians assume to be true right now, is an eternal truth. That is Platonic Realism, which I do not agree with. I think that mathematical truths are principles invented by the human mind, which are dependent on the human mind for existence, and therefore cannot be eternal.

.
Nevertheless, mathematicians and logicians are saying that their if-then facts are true any time, any place where they’re evaluated for truth/falsity. …timeless universal in that sense.
.
The matter of whether abstract if-then facts are valid or true only with respect to an experiencer is a different issue, a position held by some, but not all, in metaphysics. …but not an issue of mathematics or logic.
.
I agree that we disagree on that metaphysical matter, and I re-emphasize that that issue isn’t relevant to my metaphysical proposal, because my proposal is from the point of view of individual experience.
.
I’d said:
.

…and I’ve been answering your disagreements.
.
Whether they’ve been adequately answered isn’t for you, me, or any advocate of a position on the matter, to judge. It’s for outside observers of the discussion to judge. — Michael Ossipoff

.
You reply:
.

You answer my disagreements by reasserting the things I disagree with.

.
Thank you for your opinion on that.
.
As I said, that’s a matter for others to judge.
.
I’d said:
.

The point is that these inevitable abstract facts are absolutely, timelessly, true for anyone anywhere. … — Michael Ossipoff

.
You reply
.

I disagree. If the person cannot interpret the symbols, or misinterprets the symbols, then the abstracts are not true for that person.

.
They aren’t true for a groundhog, because s/he isn’t into that sort of thing at all. But neither are they false for a groundhog.
.
They’re true when examined/evaluated by humans. Can some humans be mistaken? Of course. If someone in authority says that even if all Slitheytoves are brillig, and all Jaberwockeys are Slitheytoves, nevertheless some Jaberwockeys aren’t brillig, I guarantee that his supporters will enthusiastically and emphatically agree.
.
Humans are subject to error, and sometimes outright delusion.
.
But the fact remains that, anywhere, anywhen, even in any self-consistent possibility-world, there would be a consensus for my Slitheytoves & Jaberwockeys if-then fact, among those who take interest in such discussion.
.
Said more accurately:
.
There will be a measurable statistical positive correlation between the people who agree with that statement, and the people who are evaluated to be right, in general, on objective practical matters of fact. …and there will be a measureable statistical positive correlation between people who disagree with that Slitheytoves/Jaberwockeys statement and people who are in general evaluated to be wrong about objective practical matters of fact.
.
How do you explain that, unless there’s something about that fact that transcends and is independent of any particular world or individual experience?
.
How do you answer my other numbered reasons (above in this post) for saying that abstract if-then facts are independent of experiencers?
.

And even if they were true for anyone anywhere, this does not make them eternal, which would require that they are true when there is no people, or anything to interpret the symbols.

.
It would mean that there’s something about those facts that transcends and is independent of a particular experiencer or a particular world.
.

Since the abstracts are expressed as symbols, and symbols require interpretation, and truth is attributed to the interpretation, then there can be no truth without interpretation.

.
And I emphasize that at least many or most abstract if-then facts can be expressed in words, in ordinary human spoken language.
.
Michael Ossipoff