O.K. I’m changing my name to Interminable Username…;
Anyway, I’m not trying to get into it with you about username creativity (it’s just a username for god’s sake). Whenever you get your deep philosophical discussions about whether existence exists or possibility is possible interupted by “dude, your username’s too long”, you can be sure that the possibility exists that it is.
And yes, I think my username is insipid, as well. I think that any joke or play on words gets old after the first telling. Whatever.
I would assume, then, that you also feel that there is an objective existence, Vorlon (the length of the name only bothers me when I have to type it ;)). And then this is where I am losing you again. What makes you say that there is? How do you choose between frames?
As far as any individual is concerned, there’s only one frame. English or logic problem: if the frame declares what an individual is, then how am I to understand this?
I am understanding that you are saying that things exist whether or not there is a frame, but all declarations of existence require a frame, and that frame is not chosen among many but is static. Right?
From the point of view of any individual, there is only one frame. The individual defines what the frame is, and the frame defines what the individual is. They are one.
What defines the elements of a set? The fact that they’re grouped together in a set. What defines a set? The elements it contains.
When I look at my model of the world, I can perceive many frames. I have a “God’s-eye view” of things.
Declarations of existence can only be made in a metalevel, a higher one, than the level of existence that is referred to.
Hmm, I would rather say that the definition of a set is a choice function applied to elements under consideration (say, all the natural numbers which are perhaps all that were defined by this point). This set might be empty, though I wouldn’t say it is then the empty set.
The problem, IMO, with simply adding elements and calling it a set is that we get to the place you are in, a tautology of two steps. Now, in a sense all definitions are tautologies, but one definition shouldn’t refer to a definition if that definition refers to it. That’s MHO. In fact, that is part of what I’ve been trying to point out: What’s A? Well, B. What’s B? Well, A. I would call that a problem. Don’t you think?
Ok, but if this is the case then we should never need to answer the question, “Exists relative to what?” which should at the very least be obvious from the apparent assumption (and hence fact) that we cannot, shall we say, escape our own frame.
However, if there is an objective reality, and we can know it, then the point of individual frames seems quite tangential, and in fact only seems to introduce more problems. In fact, it quite seems that you are concerned with the finger and not the moon.
I don’t understand what you are trying to distinguish here by using the same word twice in the same sentence differently. Are you saying that things exist inside of a frame but saying they exist must take place in a super-frame? A frame of frames?
A and B are part of a larger category. It’s the nature of that category that I’ve been trying (poorly) to explain.
** Yes. The frame we’re in is always ours. But something can exist relative to things that aren’t real to us. We therefore can’t say that they “exist” in a general sense, because they don’t exist to us.
** There’s an objective reality, and we can’t know it. The part cannot comprehend the whole. Since we’re part of the reality, we can’t know what it is.
When we talk about the frames, we’re using models. Constructions, inside our minds. These constructions have certain properties, and we can manipulate these properties as we wish. The frames that we’re a part of (the sets of relationships that we have) are beyond us.
There are sets, and sets of sets, and sets of sets of sets. There’s mass-energy, and the particles composed of it, and the atoms composed of the particles, and the molecules composed of the atoms, and the cells composed of the molecules, and the structures composed of the cells, and the organs composed of the structures, and the functions that result from those organs. These things are all relationships.
TVAA, I think that your understanding of existence and mine are as similas materialism and idealism. For instance:
I agree entirely with the second independent clause, which makes the first semantically empty.
I also find it interesting that you seem to differ with erl’s phenomenological approach to existence, since it would seem to be strongly implied by the focus upon interactions within a frame of reference. I suspect that the reason is related to my observation above: both are consequences of ignoring human epistemological limits.
The important thing to recognize is that the universe is necessarily more than any person can recognize or understand, even in theory.
It doesn’t matter if we can know what it is; the universe acts according to its nature regardless of our understanding of it.
Recognizing that we can’t comprehend the ultimate nature of the universe does not mean that its “existence” (the word is not correct, but English no longer suffices to describe the relevant concept, and I have no other comprehensible options) is meaningless or empty.
That could be said to be the essence of my argument.
But if we cannot know what it is, we have no justification for making pronouncements about what it is.
How then, do you as an individual make declarations of existence?
How are mutual interactions delineated into levels?
Would you say that we are mutually interacive with objective reality?
From which of these levels of mutual interaction are you priveleged to declare the existence of objective reality?
With what other interaactive agents can objective reality be said to exist?
Recognizing that we cannot comprehend the ultimate nature of the Universe does mean that it’s existence (or not, or not precisely existence but something else we cannot quite name) is meaningless. Specifically, it means that we cannot meaningfully communicate as to or about said nature. The concept which we cannot form has neither internal nor external referent, and whatever symbols we might attempt to use will have no utility. Any sound and fury we waste upon the attempt signifies nothing.
No. We cannnot know its content, but we can know its general nature.
As an individual, I don’t. As a part of a larger reality, I am justified in doing so.
Not all interactions are the same. The stratification is due to perception more than anything else. Each layer is composed from the interactions between the ‘objects’ of a lower and more fundamental layer.
Necessarily.
Relative to what?
You mean things other than reality? There aren’t any, at least not from any perspective within this reality. If such a thing existed, and it were possible for it to interact with us, it would be a part of reality by definition. If there were things that couldn’t interact, they’d be outside of reality and undetectable in all senses.
We can’t speak of the reality of the ultimate layer, but we can discuss the relationships between levels quite effectively.
How? Can you explain where and why you see the epistemological barrier falling between “knowing its general nature” and “comprehending”.
You are always an individual. You gain nothing from being part of a “larger reality” that you cannot access from within your frame. How could you? “Larger reality” can be meaningful to you only through the interactions in your frame. Justifying your assertions based upon interactions which cannot effect you and which you will never be able to verify is building the proverbial castle in the clouds. It might be pretty, but you can’t live there.
How do you stratify "lower and more fundamental’? Do you have a means of distinction which is not arbitrary? If so, how does one verify both hte means and teh distinctions which it produces?
Really? How do we do that? If we can only interact with those things which are in our frame, then this “objective reality” is bound by our frame. If we can interact with things outside of our frame, then I think you need to re-examine your concept of frames as they apply to ‘existence’.
I think you misunderstood the thrust of these questions:[list]
[li]From which of these levels of mutual interaction are you priveleged to declare the existence of objective reality? You stratify “levels of mutual interaction” based “more upon perception than anything else”. Which specific level do you use to justify your pronouncements about objective reality?[/li][li]With what other interactive agents can objective reality be said to exist? You say that objective reality exists. You define interaction in terms of mutual interaction. With what does “objective reality” interact to declare its [relative] existence? This would seem to strongly relate to your idea that you, from within your frame, interact with “objective reality”. [/li]
Only if those levels are open to examination/verification within our frame. All else is fiction or self-delusion.
I am curious, though, how do you reconcile “We can’t speak of the reality of the ultimate layer” with “There’s an objective reality”?
To clarify: we can generally understand the relationship between our experiences and the world around us, but we can’t create a model that allows us to duplicate or predict with certainty how that world will act. We’re limited to what we perceive of that reality, and we can never determine whether any perception is valid except by comparing it with other perception.
Incorrect. You are never an individual. You are never distinct. When are you ever separated from the world?
A higher level of reality is composed of the relationships between the ‘things’ in the reality in which you exist. A deeper level consists of ‘things’ that make up the ‘things’ you perceive.
Bound? No, the frame is the objective reality.
We can’t interact with things outside of our frame.
Beg pardon? I haven’t made that many, and those that I have made come from models of this level of reality and their relationship to me.
The ones within our frame are open to examination. The models we consruct of those examinations aren’t guaranteed to correspond with what we examine.
Limitations of English. ‘Is’ is not a word that can be applied to the deepest layer in any meaningful sense, but there’s no other word I can use to make the sentence.
If you will decide upon a consistent usage, I will try to match it.
I cannot see the bottom of this pit. Do you have any verifiable means for determining which “things” make up the “things” I perceive? Especially since, “We’re limited to what we perceive of that reality, and we can never determine whether any perception is valid except by comparing it with other perception.” I see no means of segregating perceptions into “levels” that is not inherently arbitrary. Now, that does not mean such a system cannot be quite useful, but it makes it a shaky basis upon which to build a metaphysic.
Perhaps the source of my confusion is the word objective. Can you please explain to me in what manner I should understand a frame which defines/is defined by my I and is accessible solely through my perceptions should be asserted as objective? After that, we can address the issue of how my objective reality can be reconciled with yours.
“Many” is hardly the issue, since “one” is unjustified. But I think that our disagreement here stems from your use of the word “objective”, so I suggest we set this issue aside for now.
I may be wrong, though, since your second clause suggests that you use models you construct of “this level of reality” to make pronouncements about “other levels of reality”. Perhaps not, though, I remain unclear on how you determine that a “level of reality” is “objective”.
I agree with this statement completely.
The limitation lies not within the language but within yourself (and myself and any other self whose frame is bound similarly to mine). There is no symbol which can be meaningfully applied. All attempts to do result in gibberish, though it is sometimes eloquently structured, even poetic, gibberish.
I’m trying. I’m not even certain that I haven’t succeeded.
Who said it was accessible solely by your perceptions? It’s your interactions that are important. Your perceptions are events, and as such, they exist in reality, but they don’t determine the nature of the world. Rather, it’s the other way around. The information in your perceptions determines the nature of the models your mind makes, and thus creates a sublevel of reality.
What do you mean, ‘reconciled’? Our objective realities are necessarily the same; otherwise, how are we interacting now?
** No, it’s not the information within any level of reality that is objective: the levels themselves are objective.
The level below a snowbank is the snowflake. The level below a snowflake is the water molecule. The level below a water molecule is the atom. The level below an atom is the particle.
There are no concepts to describe the final layer. The limitation is in both ourselves and the language.