Generally speaking 'space' is used in two senses; geometric space and ontological space. In physics there are two geometric spaces, the quantum spacetime of energy and the ordinary spacetime of material objects. Since these two geometries are different the universe consists of two spacetimes, two universes. Particles live in quantum spacetime and large objects live in physical spacetime. This is why location is so ambiguous in physics; where is a particle? It is nowhere if by 'where' we mean a location in 4D spacetime. It is elsewhere, in quantum spacetime.
In an ontological sense both spacetimes are 'here' in ontological space but being distinct geometries they are distinct universes.
The geometry of a space is determined by the objects that inhabit that space. Two different geometries can exist in the same ontological space.

The difference is merely semantic. Experience is knowledge.

Such as??? :chin:

(Please, no equivocating uses of "knowing". Thanks) — 180 Proof

There is abstract, intellectual knowledge. There is carnal knowledge. Eat an apple; you know what an apple tastes like. There is consciousness, there is art, music...many ways of knowing and many facets of reality to know.

An ode to blissful ignorance? — 180 Proof

There are different kinds of knowing. In one way I don't know but in another, I believe I do.

What do know of our nature and good laws? — Athena

One of the problems with modern thinking is that to 'know' usually means abstract, intellectual knowledge as if that is the only kind of knowledge. Spiritually, our knowledge is largely through experience and intuition. Our intellect tries to formulate this understanding in abstract terms, but not very well. So I don't "know" what we know, but it doesn't matter.

George Boole is your man . Computation is an analogue of logic.

Existence. All created things are properties of existence.

We are properties of it and perceive other properties/creations.

I agree. 'Nothing' is no (created) - thing, which can be a positive existence.

... and because "nothing" causes it to be. — 180 Proof

If nothingness has a power to cause anything, it is not nothingness. Nothingness is not even there. 'It' is not even an it; 'it' is entirely absent.

I'm not trying to prove anything, just provide food for thought.

Mind is necessary for anything to evolve beyond a primitive level of complexity. Thought comes before all else that is created. Thought is more real than matter.

I cover this same ground on my TPF profile but conclude everything is self-organizing, evolving, dissipating and not "created". — 180 Proof

i. "Why is there anything at all?" Because
(A) 'absence of any possibility of anything at all' – nothing-ness – is impossible.
(B) the only ultimate why-answer that does not beg the question is There Is No Ultimate Why-Question.

There is something because there is nothing to prevent it???

ii. existence in its entirety is the ultimate, unbounded brute fact; therefore, every existent (facts events things persons) is necessarily contingent.

Existence/God contains all possibilities. The real is what has been made real from this potential of possibilities.

iii. the real (e.g. existence) encompasses reasoning (e.g. naturalism); therefore, reasoning cannot encompass (i.e. causally explain) the real.

The power of reason in our minds is God. All mind is ultimately God's Mind.

To argue there is an entity without form or attribute, but who has the power to create, is to define a non-physical, propertyless powerful creator.

How isn't this theism? — Hanover

Well, it is theism. Does existence/God have attributes even before creation comes into being? I don't know.

EnPassant's description suggests acosmism even more than theism. — 180 Proof

Yes, properties of existence (contingent/created things) inherit their existence from existence/God. They are made out of existence.

There is something rather than nothingness. This eternal something is existence. Either we have something or nothingness. Clearly there is something there. But the things we see are, for the most part, temporal. They have been created. What was there before all created/contingent things? There was existence. This eternal something, from which all things came, is eternal and IS existence.

It is really just semantic. I hope my use of the word existence is clear. As for quantum fluctuations; nothingness is profoundly 'empty'. It is the pink elephant that is NOT standing on your kitchen table. It is utterly absent. There cannot be fluctuations in something that is not there. Nothingness is not even an 'it' because if it was 'it' would be something.

Clearly existence (the uncreated void) contains possibilities since existence became many things: tables, chairs, elephants, stars, planets...
These things exist because they are properties of existence. A horse made of silver IS the silver that makes it. Created things exist because they are made from existence. All this is possible.

My argument is that if God exists, existence is God. Now this brings up the question; How/Why did existence become being/life/consciousness/creativity? Does this seem like an intelligent process?

This is an example of how being and existence can be confused. I see existence as a primordial, eternal, positive. An analogy is a lump of lead representing existence; it is simply there. The lead can be reformed into the shape of a horse or an eagle; it becomes. The lead is existence, the horse is being, it is what is created.

Is existence something that has properties? It is clear that things that exist have properties, but existence is not something that exists. — Fooloso4

Existence, as I am using the term, is not a verb nor is it a property. It is the eternal positive, as opposed to nothingness, that is. It is what is there before 'creation'. See below-

In philosophical theology, this is the rationale behind for example Paul Tililch's insistence that God does not exist - that while God is, God is not 'an existent' which reduces God to a being, one being among others. — Wayfarer

Different philosophers use 'being' and 'existence' interchangably which is woefully confusing. I see existence as the eternal positive. I see being as developed existence: something that is closer to life and activity, consciousness.

Assume X has the property 'existence'. In this respect we see X and existence as distinct entities. Now ask 'Does X exist?

1. X exists. This makes existence as a property of X superfluous whence X is existence.

2. X does not exist. It is incoherent to say as non existent X has properties. Whence existence has properties but is not a property of anything.

God and nature are not identical. Temporal Nature is a property of God. God/existence becomes.

1. If there is no empirical evidence for something, then belief in that something is based on faith and personal beliefs, not fact. — Thund3r

There is no problem with evidence. The entire universe is evidence. The question is; evidence for what? That is, it is our interpretation of the evidence that matters, not the existence of evidence.

3. Therefore, the existence of a deity is based on faith and personal beliefs, not fact. (1,2 MP) — Thund3r

It is often based on personal experience too.

quantum fluctuations can produce matter and energy out of nothingness and could have led to the creation of the universe. Of course, one could ask how those initial “quantum laws” were created and end up in a similar causal regression as a theist trying to explain who created their deity. The difference between them, though, seems to be that theist is making positive claims that they know what’s at the end of that regression – and that seems problematic. It seems like the atheist is in a better situation here. — Thund3r

What matters is the fact that there is existence. Existence is not a property of things. Things are properties of existence. Existence is not a property of God. Existence is God. Existence is that which is. All contingent/created things are properties of existence and are made out of existence.

I'm a follower of an excellent chess channel on Youtube, hosted by an ebullient Serb, Agadmator. — Wayfarer

Yes, I have looked at some of his videos. V. good.

We might combine these two questions, to ask what does it mean to say that potential is real. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think chess is a good analogy. Once the concept of chess exists all possible chess games are given potential. Once a chess game is played (even in one's mind) that chess game becomes real.

Once a concept is defined within an existing framework of mathematics, in a sense all that logically flows from it is potential, awakened by diligent investigations and discovery. — jgill

The way I put it is that numbers are real, but they're not existent in the sense that phenomenal objects are existent, — Wayfarer

Yes, mathematical potential exists because our forms of mathematics exists - linear equations, set theory etc. So the question is, where is this potential? Is it merely inside our skulls or does it exist independently of the human brain? Is it universal?

I disagree with him entirely-

The problem, though, is that this world is essentially full of junk. The vast majority of it is simply useless, and of no interest to anyone whatsoever. — Streetlight

There is no junk, there is only mathematical truth. An example is chess: Chess is a concept built on a few simple ideas and rules. Once these ideas exist chess exists, potentially, in its entirety. But this entirety contains good chess and 'bad' chess. All possible games of chess from genius to silliness. They exist because chess as a concept exists. If math exists all math exists potentially. Is there a difference between an actual Platonic realm (containing good math) and a potential Platonic realm (containing 'junk')?

the idea of natural numbers (1, 2, 3...). Rovelli basically asks: why does anyone think natural numbers are natural at all? We certainly find it useful to count solidly individuated items, but he notes that what what actually counts as 'an object' is a very slippery affair: "How many clouds are there in the sky? How many mountains in the Alps? How many coves along the coast of England?". — Streetlight

Very woolly thinking here. Numbers exist as an abstraction, there is no need to have 2 or 3 actual things to have numbers:
/ = 1
// = 2
/// = 3 etc.
If all mathematics exists then it is natural for our experience to awaken (induction) particular aspects of mathematics. eg. If there are sheep their multiplicity might awaken numbers in our intuition. If we lived without a need for numbers their existence might not have been awakened by our experience. But numbers would exist anyhow.

As for the Platonic realm - does it mean that the number 3 exists in some concrete reality or does it mean that in the depths of mathematical reality there is a potential for '3' to exist - depending on what events bring it into existence? That is, is there a mathematical potential, above our specific forms of math, that makes these forms of math possible? If we say mathematics 'exists' we have to be very clear on what we mean by 'exist'.

The concept of chess can exist without a single game of chess being played in 'real' terms. In this situation, does chess exist if it exists as a concept but no games are ever played? What is the difference between a game of chess that is played and one that is merely possible, because the concept of chess exists? I think the Platonic realm does exist in the sense that it makes all kinds of math possible but not necessarily realized. I don't think he is getting very far by making a distinction between math that we have become aware of and math that might have been if the world had been different.

Maybe the Platonic realm is God's Mind, which contains all possible forms of math in the way the rules of chess makes all chess games possible.

It is the difference between a synonym and a metaphor. A synonym does not necessarily exhibit the nature of its cause but a metaphor or analogy more closely manifests the nature of the thing it represents.

Total possible universes = every possible arrangement of Plank spaces and Plank times?

I agree entirely. The loss of good language will be our undoing.

For my filthy (crypto) lucre ...
1 The world is all that is the case.
1.1 The world is the totality of facts, not of things.

[ ... ]

1.13 The facts in logical space are the world.
1.2 The world divides into facts.
— WItty, TLP (1921)
An analoguous approximation of the metaphysical to the physical: (contra Aristotlean e.g. "only continuum, no vacuum, geocentric" dogmas) classical atomism ~ RQM; logical atomism ~ information entropy; etc. Definitional questions of "matter" and "energy" are, btw, methodologically vacuous. — 180 Proof

The problem is with the word 'divide'. The connections between things are as important as the things themselves and when things are severed apart they lose meaning. This is why reductive science is inadequate and destroys meaning.

n is known and its factors, p and q are unknown. p or q are to be found.

n is the modulus. If pq = n the algorithm is designed to find p or q.

Mod n finds the remainder on division.

eg 114 = 14 (mod 100) because 14 is the remainder on division by 100.
14 o'clock = 2 o'clock (mod 12), on a 12 hour clock. Modular arithmetic is sometimes called clock arithmetic.

Search for Pollard's Rho Algorithm

Yes, so we need to qualify words like 'energy' and 'matter' and keep them in context.

Interestingly Pollard's Rho method uses this kind of iteration and waits for circularity to factor integers-


$x = 3$

$f(x) = x^2 + 1 (mod n)$

$f(x) = x_{1}$

$f(x_{1}) = x_{2}$

$f(x_{2}) = x_{3}$ etc

Isn't "energy" material in principle? — Gregory

It depends on how you define matter. For me, usually, matter is everything from the hydrogen atom up: things that are constructed. There is an expression "material particle" but this only means it is a constituent of a material object, it does not mean it is a material thing. If everything is matter nothing is, if you get my drift...

Matter does not exist as a substance in the way our (crude) senses convince us. The substance of matter is energy and matter - when we mean a physical object - is only a pattern in a field of energy. The physical universe is not really there in the way we naively imagine. All that is there, in terms of substance, is energy. Material patterns can dissolve away leaving only energy; the table can decay and be absorbed into the soil; the atom can dissolve into energy; even the black hole evaporates. All that is there is energy and temporal patterns.

I think self and ego are not the same. The self is one's individuality, the ego is self-ish or self-centered. Love looks out and loves what is not self: one loves poetry, art, nature, another being... these are not self. Ego looks inward and loves the self. Love and ego are opposites. Too much inward looking ego becomes pathological; the megalomaniac, the tyrant etc.

Is it already too late? — Xtrix

The narrative we are being given is that we have a global warming problem and we have to fix that and move on to 2050 and beyond. This narrative is false. We have a constellation of problems and all of them are hitting at the same time and we have to solve them at the same time (as in right now). So yes, it is not likely we will solve all this stuff in time.

1. Fish stocks have collapsed. 1 bn. people in South Asia depend of fish for their livelihood.
2. Agricultural soil is now so depleted there are only 60 harvests left
3. Natural resources are getting scarce
4. Urbanization
5. Pollution
6. etc.

Can we solve all this stuff now before it gets to 1.5 degrees excess warming?

If not there's Catabolic Capitalism.

↪Wayfarer I like that quote of Ed Feser a lot. — RogueAI

Yes. Reductive science takes things apart and studies the parts but in doing so it has broken all connections. But connections between parts are as important as the parts themselves. It is these connections that make the whole and meaning is in the whole, not the parts.

Yes, 99.999% of what we do is plagiarism!