Your golf example isn't actually a relocation of an imaginary thing into the real world. It's a case of marrying thought with matter. It isn't imagining something into existence.

It isn't reasonable to say "X is the greatest integer" because there is none. Also, it's unreasonable to say "Fred is the fattest ten-foot tall man" because we know human's can't achieve 10 feet heights.

There's nothing wrong, as you say, in defining God as the ultimate being - the possessor of superlative qualities. Where is the inconsistency in this definition?

I guess I was speaking in a restricted sense. Philosophy, truth, aren't the only things worth pursuing. Yet, the truth is, beauty, power, wealth seem to be on a lower rung on the value ladder. May be it's just me. What do you think? To me, truth seems to be fundamentally connected to the nature of the universe itself. Thus, truth seems to be the ultimate goal of human endeavor...achieving the proverbial "oneness" with ultimate reality.

I see some sort of progression here...

Non-life -> Life -> Survival -> Happiness -> Truth

Life evolved from non-life. It was simply a survival game - competition for food, mates, etc. This is still true for ''lower'' animals.

Then came civilization - food surplus, shelter and free time gave birth to art, philosophy, science. Mere survival was no longer enough - we needed happiness.

As civilization evolved, happiness wasn't the only game in town. Truth (or nobility, you said) became a pursuit in itself. Happiness relegated to a lower position.

Am I making sense?

You're right. There's something wrong in relocating an imaginary x, no matter how great or perfect, into the real world. I think this is a good refutation.

1. God is the greatest being imaginable
2. If God doesn't exist then God isn't the greatest being imaginable
Therefore (modus tollens)
3. God exists

Your refutation applies to premise 2 and is a good one. I too think premise 2 is false because it's equivalent to: If God is the greatest being imaginable then God exists. This is illicit, according to you, and I agree. We can't imagine things into existence, can we????

entirely irrelevant to the truth — Wosret

I think anything to do with the self is relevant to your post. I tried to show you that, without eliminating the self from the equation, we can still reject the proposal to ''take everything from everyone''. Afterall, the self stands to gain by being selfless, as paradoxical as that sounds. Thus there's a good reason for not ''taking everything from everyone''.

You mean to say ''god is the greatest being imaginable'' contains the claim ''god exists''?

That makes sense in predicate logic. After all:

1. God is the greatest being imaginable

Statement 1 translates as (Ex)(Gx & Ix) where Gx = x is god and Ix = x is the greatest being imaginable. Existence is, it appears, presumed in statement 1.

Here's what I think...

Predicate logic fails to capture the full content of the Ontological argument. The Ontological argument moves from existence in imagination to existence in reality. So, the TOP depends on the distinction between existence in imagination and existence in reality. This crucial distinction can't be made in predicate logic. The existential quantifier, (Ex), is restricted to reality.

So, your critique fails to adequately refute the Ontological argument.

Please read above.

Really. Why?
The definition in 1 is loaded by containing a hidden premise that there is an idea of a being that can be imagined that is greater than any other idea of a being that can be imagined. Why should that hidden premise be true? — andrewk

It's reasonable to say ''God is the greatest being imaginable'' because God is defined as such and agrees with our conception of what a God must be.

If God does not exist, then you CAN'T imagine a thing greater than god. — szardosszemagad

If existence is ''better'' than nonexistence, then I can imagine a God that exists which would be greater than one that doesn't exist.

You mean something like a higher power? If yes, then certain issues crop up.

First thing is, given a higher power, can we ever understand its intentions and reasons? If we can't then you and the theologians you mention are both in the same boat. So, no use pointing fingers.

Being rational has worked for us - this attitude has led to many discoveries that are now helpful to us. It's sort of a certificate of worthiness for tge rational approach. Can we, then, apply rational analysis to God - this higher power - and judge God?

Could Nothing be the Primal Cause in a well Sophisticated world? — Vajk

Well, NOTHING forms the backdrop to everything. A physical object occupies the space that was NOTHING. An idea forms to occupy what was once a void/NOTHING. Tabula rasa?

Could Nothing be the very reason for everything? — Vajk

What do you mean?

People generally only tell the truth when it is beneficial, spend more money and time advertising and telling people that they gave to charities, or donated time than they gave, or donated. Exaggerations, omissions, outright fabrications... — Wosret

One thing that's important here is that the self can never be completely eliminated from human transactions. The best way to understand this is to know that even altruism, supposedly the highest good, yields personal benefits. Thus to begrudge an ostentatious donation is wrong because it's impossible for the donor to avoid some form of personal benefit in the process. Think of it as sharing - giving a part of what one has to someone in dire straits. Sharing is good, no?

This all only true if I couldn't get away with it — Wosret

You have a point. Somebody has to know and have the power to resist you. If not, there's no reason to hold back your ego. This has happened in history - from armies looting to serial killers murdering with impunity.

Perhaps the rewards of restraining the ego are greater than that of the ego unleashed...for most that is. It may be that people reason along Kantian terms. What if everyone unbridles their ego? Surely, that would easily make one as easily a victim as a victimizer. So we choose to restrain our selfishness.

Why shouldn't I just take everything I want from everyone in every moment? — Wosret

This question is motivated by selfishness. It is, so to speak, the ego at its extreme. The problem is, we're social animals by necessity. We don't have the biological machinery - fangs, strength, speed, claws, etc. - to make it alone in the wilderness. That means society, and each individual in it, is necessary for our survival. So, if we're to survive as an individual we must work towards the welfare of the social group we're part of.

So, strangely, two opposite paths - one that motivates your question and the one that rejects such a course of action - originate from the same place viz. Selfishness.

The point that's relevant to your query is that if one were to follow your course of action, you wouldn't survive for long in society - look what they do to criminals. In other words, ''taking everything from everyone'', although based on self-interest, is ultimately self-destructive.

A top down approach is helpful in general about being. — MysticMonist

Can you explain this further? What do you mean?

The latter! — Jake Tarragon

Makes biological sense. Our survival depends on knowing the truth. So, truth has no value in itself.

does absolutely ensure survival, on the next level up from that, it is about competitive advantage. — MikeL

An advantage for survival. It amounts to the same thing. What's surprising is that I expected someone to argue in favor of the intrinsic worth of truth. I guess it has none.

(Y)

But what about the very basic question of what do we mean we say something exists or doesn't exist? — MysticMonist

It is ''easier'' to define existence for physical objects. If x can be perceived through the senses and their extensions (instruments), then x exists in the physical world.

It appears, therefore, that existence of a physical object x depends on the effects it has on other physical objects. To say the least, that's the way we assign ''existence'' to objects.

The problem is, with this definition, we can't conclusively say that something exists. Imagine a world of two objects, x and y. As per this definition, existence depending on effects of something on another, x exists because of its effects on y and y exists because of its effects on x. The circularity is obvious in a 2-object world and can't be eliminated in the universe as we know it.

So, existence in a physical universe depends on circular logic. What does this mean?

This same reasoning applies to all applications of the term ''existence''. We just can't be certain of the existence of anything.

So, the usual definition of existence, described above, is defective.

Another thing...

Subjective-objective divide assumes there's an objective reality. Two problems with this are:

1. How do we know? There's no contradiction in everything being subjective, save the one that arises from self-reference. Do you think there's any problem with ''everything is subjective"?

2. Can we even access this objective reality? Your method that many same observations is objective amounts to saying subjective + subjective + subjective +... = objective and that means the objective is only a subset of the subjective. There's something wrong with this, I believe.

See? Other people get it. — Sapientia

Thinking has run into an insurmountable barrier?

It's not only the logic that's important — Baden

(Y)

And "truths" are really just facts that can only exist in a very narrow context whereas one's life is potentially unbounded, and not hemmed in by simple and contrived black and white questions — Jake Tarragon

Should our lives be guided by truth or should our lives guide the truth?

It appears that most believe it's the former but, as you imply, tge former is based on the latter.

So, you see no value in truth beyond its use as a means for happiness and survival?

If that's the case then philosophy too must simply be a means to survival. Yet, many here (I'm guessing) think that philosophy is a higher goal - the quest for knowledge for its own sake.

Especially since you seem to have characterized "happiness" so as to make it incompatible with pain and suffering. — Cabbage Farmer

I think you've hit upon something there. I believe happiness is the contrary of pain & suffering. Is there an overlap area between happiness and pain & suffering, as your comment seems to suggest? Can we be in pain AND happy? I'd like to know what you mean here.

Nevertheless, it seems most of us find truth most of the time, and most of us value truth most of the time -- whether or not we acknowledge that we do. — Cabbage Farmer

The only value in truth that I see is in its use for survival. We can see that in our willingness to believe falsehoods if they make us happy. Truth is lower in priority than happiness.

So, I find your claim that people value truth in and of itself unbelievable.

honed by natural selection to produce "mostly true" beliefs. — Cabbage Farmer

That's what I mean. Truth is only valuable to the extent that it can be used to make us happy or help us survive. The moment this link is lost, people prefer lies over truths.

Can two sides with conflicting views of truth both be right? If so, does the concept of truth remain? Can one side’s truth can be considered a greater truth that subordinates a lesser truth? Or, is the essence of a truth that it is a truth, and as such cannot be made less of a truth by another truth? — Mark Marsellli

This isn't about truth. This is about consequences that follow from certain actions.

To be specific, it's a dilemma.

Either you help impose anti-dumping measures or not. If you do then it's bad for wire manufacturers. If you don't then it's bad for wire rod producers.

So, whatever you do, you end up hurting the economy.

You have two options here:

1. Show that one side is incorrect. We can assess whether imposing anti-dumping measures truly hurt the economy or not.

2. Offer a counter-dilemma:

Either you impose anti-dumping laws or you don't. If you do then it's good for the wire rod producers. If you don't then it's good for the wire manufacturers.

So, either wire rod producers will benefit or wire manufacturers will benefit

We value it in itself. — Brian

Why? What is this other value in truth? What, apart from the survival advantage that truth brings, makes truth valuable?

We've seen, perhaps needs no mention, that we often sacrifice the truth for happiness. We do like the occasional white lie - about our looks, our weight, our social position, etc.

On the other hand, there are some who pursue truth regardless of whether it brings joy or sorrow. One thing worth mentioning here is that knowledge, which presupposes truth, seems to have value in and of itself. It makes us happy to learn and understand even if what we learn is a sad truth.

So, occasionaly we find ourselves divided between truth and happiness, forced to choose one over the other.

For those who choose happiness there's no problem because happiness has value in and of itself.

But for those who choose truth it's a problem because as far as I can see, truth only has value to the extent our happiness or survival depends on it.

"It is what it is" is a tautology - redundancy with an information content of zero.

Perhaps, 2000 years of fruitless thinking can be summed up in this statement. On the other hand, there may be a deeper meaning which I'm not aware of.

I think the objective-subjective distinction doesn't translate into a good-bad distinction.

Of some things we can be objective e.g. the length of a stick or the abortion debate. However, some things are purely subjective e.g. likes and dislikes.

It depends on the area of discourse on what position we can assume - subjective or objective.

In general, it's preferrable to be objective because it brings us closer to the truth but, as I said, there are things on which we can only be subjective.

"You should love everyone" — jancanc

This is a proposition because it has a truth value. Being a normative claim ("should"), it can be either true or false. As such, it meets the criteria for a proposition.

U know that, huh?
"You know nothing John Snow — Vajk

I don't see the relevance of this to my OP.

Do you know anything about NOTHING? If you do, please share. Thanks.

Number is not the same as quantity. — Herg

What's the difference?

Perhaps these things are irrelevant, hm what do you think? — Vajk

Socrates? What does he have to do with nothing? I know that he's famous for the words ''I know that I know nothing.'' However, this statement can be better expressed as ''I know that what I know isn't perfect, in the sense that it's free of inconsistencies''.

It's a notoriously difficult concept to define, — Wayfarer

I understand. Thanks.

However, the point in the context of this thread, is that Buddhist (and Indian) mathematicians didn't have the hang-ups about the concept of zero that were apparently held by rationalist Western mathematicians. — Wayfarer

I guess the Devil wasn't associated with NOTHING in these culture.

My position is simple.

1. There are more ways of being evil than good. The surest proof of the above statement, in agreement to your theory that something can be both good and bad, is the old adage ''you can't make everyone happy''.

2. Current moral theory is imperfect. God-based morality, Consequentialism, Deontic theory, are all flawed.

Given 1 and 2 are true, it is necessary that suffering will multiply and happiness will diminish. It's like a ship, with food in short supply and only a broken compass to aid you in the voyage. The ship and the people on it are doomed.

Numbers themselves are not properties — Herg

Really? What then of the distinction quality vs quantity?

Also...

Quantity is a property that can exist as amultitude or magnitude. Quantities can be compared in terms of "more", "less", or "equal", or by assigning a numerical value in terms of a unit of measurement. — Wikipedia

Another thing is science is in the business of quantifying everything. I reckon it's to do with achieving objectivity and also the assumption that mathematics is the underlying principle of the universe.

So, a quality, unequivocally a property, can be quantified. For instance, red is a certain wavelength of light. I think quantity is a property.

Martin Heidegger's argument in Being and Time. I would kindly suggest that your ontology needs to be either displaced or supplemented. — bloodninja

NOTHING is, by definition, neither physical nor mental. Where, exactly, do you have a problem with that?

The abstract concept of zero and the abstract concept of nonexistence are distinct from each other as well as from the yet more abstract concept of Nothing. — Cabbage Farmer

If you have the time, can you unpack the above quote for me? How is zero different from nonexistence from NOTHING?

To me, NOTHING is nonexistence and zero is a property of NOTHING.



Thanks for the post. I learned something.

Is Sunyata = NOTHING?

What is the difficulty in randomness? You didn't mention.

To me, randomness is a feature of probability. A specific situation in which ALL events are equally likely.

Probability is a stand-in, a kind of approximation, where deterministic knowledge isn't possible, either due to complexity of the phenomenon or true probability.

My issue, isn't with randomness but with the notion of probability itself. They say the quantum world is probabilistic but, the point is, at a human scale - barring the brain, which may be subject to quantum phenomena - everything is subject to physical and chemical laws. Motion of objects can be predicted, chemical reactions can be predicted. What this implies is that probability at our scale - tossing coins and dice - is nothing more than our attempt to approximate complex, predictable (therefore not probabilistic) phenomena.

Randomness, being only a specific case of probability in which ALL events are equally lik.ely, is therefore moot.

Yes, it's difficult to talk about NOTHING. Being, by definition, nonexistence, it lacks properties we're familiar with and, so, is beyond our grasp.

We may, however, approach it negatively, in fact it's defined negatively - as what it isn't. The only property NOTHING has is zero, a quantiative property.

Zero is a number too small to be measured or the absences of. — Jeremiah

Zero is the number that describes NOTHING - an absence of a thing.

Are you saying NOTHING is a waste of time? Why?

Agreed.

the concept of N that has the property — Herg

Ok...somewhat...

Numbers are not properties of things — Herg

So, there's no such thing as a quantitative property. Humans walking on 2 legs and dogs on 4 don't assist in distinguishing the two?

A hammer is neither a physical phenomenon nor a mental phenomenon — bloodninja

By that reasoning, a hammer is NOTHING.

But ìt doesn't reside in the mental world — bloodninja

Something neither mental nor physical? That seems impossible. Can you clarify.

I don't know if I'm making sense but my 2 cents...

In the case of a sleeping person the brain structure of consciousness exists in full bloom. In other words, a sleeping person is merely taking a break from consciousness - a necessary one, for health.

A fetus, in the early stages of development, is just a clump of cells - lacking the neural structure necessary for consciousness. Of course, this claim is arguable but, the point is, without brain activity, a person is, quite clearly, lacking consciousness.

So, the fetus-sleeping person analogy breaks down because a neural structure (or brain) is necessary for consciousness.

One could argue, then, that the issue is that of potential for consciousness - both the fetus and the sleeping person being capabale of it. But, the fact is killing a sleeping person is murder not because a sleeping person has potential for consciousness. It's because a sleeping person is already conscious.

All that said, I'm assuming a scientific position.

Moral relativism doesn't save the situation. In fact, it supports my case. If morality is relative, then it implies there will be confusion - a particular act, x, will be good in one culture and bad in another. So, not only do the possibilities of bad multiply, it also stymies all attempts to come to a consensus on what is good and what is bad; thereby perpetuating evil.

There is a third world. — bloodninja

I had to break up reality into two worlds because there are things that are exclusive to each. Thoughts are immaterial. They don't have mass and nor do they occupy space. For me, that requires division of reality into two worlds - physical and mental.

Your third world - circumspection - is unwarranted because everything in it resides in the mental world. This makes it redundant, at least for the meaning of nothing.

How can we differentiate lies/truths?

1. Obama is the current president
2. Bush is the current president

1 and 2 are both lies but they're about different people. So, they're different lies.

Similarly,

3. Everest is the tallest mountain
4. Pacific is the largest ocean

3 and 4 are both truths but they're different because they're about different things.

Your example:

5. Person A claims Trump is the current president.
6. Person B claims Trump is the current president.

5 and 6 are NOT different truths because they both claim the same thing about the same person. Who claims is irrelevant to truth. Truth is based on how the world is and not on who claims it.

I think my issue with some of your interesting suggestions above is that (regarding zero) you're putting the cart before the horse so to speak. — bloodninja

The above contradicts with the following:

All I'm basically saying is that nothing is primordial, and more primordial than zero — bloodninja

From what I've read, zero is the solution to x - x where x is a number. Before zero, the answer to x - x would be nothing. So, nothing is, as you said, primordial to zero. Is N = zero?

No, because:

What is the solution of x + 1 = x? There is no numerical value for x (not even zero) that'll satisfy the above equation. The normal response to the above question is nothing.

However, in set theory, we could say that the set that contains the solutions to x + 1 = x is the empty set, { }. Now how many elements does { } contain? Zero.

So, N is not zero but zero is a property of N.

It isn't. — StreetlightX

What isn't?

Why would nothing have properties? What kind of ontology are you situating nothing in? — bloodninja

When we talk of properties of physical objects, we consider their quantitative aspect too. We say ''5 bananas'', ''2 cars'', etc. These numbers, as relates to objects, are the quantitative properties of things.

Similarly, when we quantify NOTHING, we do so with the number zero. Zero is the quantitative property of NOTHING just like 5 is the quantitative property of your right/left hand.

Ontological basis? NOTHING is nonexistence. Yet, paradoxically, it has a quantitative property.

Can you think of a case where this may apply for no thing as well? — MikeL

Well, it's quite difficult to work with something which, by definition, is nonexistence. As for the infinite, NOTHING is still relevant to it. What is the largest possibe number? The answer: NOTHING!

My view is that at the macro-scale there are specific physical laws. Force, mass, velocity, the factors relevant at that scale, are all governed by fixed principles/laws. So, all causation, at that scale, is predictable i.e. there is no chance.

Chance/probability, therefore, can't be objective. As you said, it's just an approximation...of complex causation.

Why do you think chance/probability is objective?

The most important fact about death is no one really knows what happens during and after death.

So, all talk of an after-life, or not, is mere speculation.

That said, we can make some reasoned guesses on the matter.

If we look at death, as objectively as possible, restricted to only the observable, it appears death is a full-stop to existence. That's to say there's no soul, and no after-life. In short, science doesn't seem to support the existence of a soul which is necessary for an after-life to make sense. It can be argued that the soul, being immaterial, can't be scientifically examined like, for instance, a rock.

Personally, I'm confused. On one hand we have sleep - which, to me, is what's death-like - and the existence of a soul seems improbable.

On the other hand, there are many instances of strange events that seem to speak otherwise - making the existence of a soul probable.

I'm undecided on the matter. Perhaps one has to die first and find out for oneself.

Like most people, you have a horrible understanding of what probability is. Probability is the frequency of possible outcomes. Whether or not that is a result of predetermination or "chance" is irrelevant. — Jeremiah

Can you teach me the correct understanding of probability?