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!

I think the question ought to be, what is rational thinking, because by introducing reason you have at least some common ground to start with. Otherwise it's so broad as to not be meaningful, 'thinking' in the loose sense being simply all of the spontaneous activities of any mind. — Wayfarer

Yes, thought is being; I think therefore I am. When we think our minds move through eternity/God, as a fish moves through the sea. Intellectual philosophy is an activity of the intellect.

Trick question. As long as you are talking about tiny triangles the sides add up to more than the diagonal. No matter how small they get. So the only question is what do the sides add up to in one tiny triangle. Then multiply by the number of triangles to get 2. A triangle is not a diagonal!

Is violence ethical, and if so, when and where? — john27

Yes. The Battle of Britain.

I don't think science would collapse. It would be like the beginning of the last century when they thought the subject of science was this 4 dimensional universe of macroscopic objects. Then the quantum cowboys came along and discovered weird things and it turned out that the ordinary physical universe is only a simple thing compared to the weird thing.

Likewise with mind-brain. If they discover non physical mind, brain stuff will seem relatively simple.

If there is no free will accountability becomes a mere social convenience and not a moral issue.

The observation here is quite specific: hell is immoral. The simple answer is that assuming god is good, then there is no hell, and various popular forms of christianity and other religions are simply wrong. — Banno

What if good ultimately involves allowing creation to risk suffering by being free?

The essence of the doctrine of The Fall is disobedience. And disobedience is its own punishment.
— EnPassant

That's like saying that drugs are bad because one disobeyed the order not to take them.
And not perhaps because they are toxic substances that mess up one's body. — baker

What I mean is that it leads to its own punishment.

A rich and powerful person can kill, rape, and pillage, and it has no bad consequences for them

What happens to them in the next life?

Scientism is the view that science is the best or only objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values. — Raymond

I think in modern times the line between hypothesis and scientific knowledge is being blurred. The theory of evolution is often presented as done and dusted with only some loose ends to be tied up. The reality is, there are many gaping holes in it. (The theory is right in some aspects but it is far less complete than a lot of science writers pretend.) Another problem is the gene-of-the-gaps theory: all kinds of things are routinely explained away with vague references to genes. As a result people are wont to say things like "Cricket goes way back in our family, it is in our genes.". Likewise with the 'alcoholic gene'. That was very popular some years back but has gone out of fashion now. The line is being blurred between science and scientism and this is not a good development.

The problem is not science, it is the abuse of scientific knowledge, among other things. But scientism probably exacerbates anti science because it blurs the distinction between science and non science.

The question has to do with what the world is. Theists maintain there is a spiritual reality to the world. If the materialist denies the existence of that world it hardly exists for them in the same way as it does for the theist. So if you say theists and atheists live in the same world you deny the existence of the spiritual reality of the world.

It seems to me that 'equal rights' somehow got confused with 'equality'. People are not equal. Is an idiot equal to Einstein? No. A man equal to a woman? No, there are hormonal and emotional differences. Is a bird equal to a fish? Be careful how you answer or you might end up in jail...

Believers understand the world differently.
— EnPassant

So do bats, I'm told.

How can you tell? — Banno

That is my point. Do bats live in our world? The world of art, literature, commerce, finance, politics? If bats are not conscious of these worlds they can hardly live in them. And that's my point, it is a question of consciousness and whether theists are conscious in a different way.

Is faith exactly a matter of your opinions on certain questions (the reality of God, hell, and so on)? Is it just some propositions you assent to? — Srap Tasmaner

As said above, faith has more to do with consciousness than teachings or intellectual beliefs.

Believers do not experience a different world. — Banno

Believers understand the world differently. Even a mathematician or artist experiences the world differently. That is because they are conscious in a different way and is that not equivalent to experiencing a different world, if consciousness allows us to enter realms of reality that are beyond normal experience? But that would require levels of being beyond ordinary, everyday experience and this is exactly what theists would say exists.

What you are really saying is that a different world does not exist. More precisely, this physical world is all there is. But even some mathematicians believe mathematics is a 'Platonic' realm that is in some way real.

I am a theist, an artist and I study mathematics. These three aspects of consciousness do lead into levels of being that transcend the physical world.