No. You stil are not catching what I throw.
You said “explanations are superfluous”.
Then you explained Life, the Universe, and Everything using a model of game theory and an axiom of meta-Consciousness.
I noted that this was contradictory.
What you characterize as resistance to your thoughts on “why such a thing is true” is actually a n observation that you employ the very thing you claim to reject. And, yes, it is reminiscent of our discussion of QM.
Then my focus would be on the implications of such a scenario (until the point where you again tried to use that axiom to explain observable reality while simultaneously deriding explanations, of course.)
Until you attempt to tie the game to observable reality, it is just a thought exercise, a bit of hypothetical whimsy, a (you know it’s coming) . . .mind game.
No. Some explanations actually answer that question “why” which you seem so fond of. My objection was not to the explanation. My objection was to the absurdity of explaining while asserting that explanations are meaningless.
Yes. Other answers might be: “Because I desired brightness”, “because the number of photons striking your pupil exceeds your self-defined threshhold for brightness”, “becuase electricity passing through a coil of certain metals in the appropriate atmosphere produces incandescence”, etc.
Any answer, of course, has bounded informational content and may or may not satisfy all aspects of a query. If you find that level of detail insufficient, perhaps you should phrase the question to direct the response to the context you desire.
That would depend upon my purpose in asking the question. As a general case, I would say, “yes”.
If you think Occam’s Razor, or the lack thereof, has any bearing upon the “completeness” of any given response to any given question, I submit that you do not understand William’s point at all.
Statements do not cause questions. However, any answer apprehended by a limited mind is limited in context. That is independent of teh method used to determine the answer. You seem to think that pushing the indeterminacy up one level and declaring that level off limits to questions is a satisfactory response to this. Hey, whatever works for you.
You are hardly the first person to declare, “because [Conscious Entity] made it that way” is the most satisfactory response to any line of questioning. I am hardly the first person to declare, “it doesn’t satisfy me.”
That statement has no implications without a stronger definition of Consciousness. If you would care to be explicit about the other axioms required to spin ERL’s Universal Mind Game then I will tell you what implications I see from that structure.
[ul][li]There you go demanding explanations again. I thought they were superfluous?[/li][li]What are you using to rule out other explanations (IPU, blind watchmaker, Godless chance, etc.)? You have rejected Occam (or claimed to). So how do you winnow th elist of candidates to just yours?[/li][li]I thought you said you were not using the consequences to prove the cause? Is it just the word “prove” that you are relying on to justify that juxtaposition of statements? “It’s the only explanation” but “I’m not trying to prove it/” Okay – how about proving that “it’s the only explanation.”[/ul][/li]
Ah – so you are arguing cause from consequence. How do you do this while rejecting Occam?
[li]“Games are everywhere in human life because humans invent games.”[/li][li]“Games are everywhere in human life because it is not possible for a conscious entity to develop without plaay.”[/li][li]“Games are everywhere in human life because ‘games’ is simply another way of saying ‘something a person does’”[/li][li]“Games are everywhere in human life because Loki has conquered Asgard and the world conforms to his desires.”[/li][li]“Games aren’t actually everywhere in human life, but we can make a game out of anything if we want to.”[/li]
“Rules” can be seen as implying a rulemaker. A more neutral phrasing is: We will find no direct evidence for anything outside of the observable Universe because the observable Universe is defined by our perception. We actually can find eidence for things such as virtual particles which are outside of the observable Universe; it just isn’t direct evidence.
I am very much into games. I am also into logic. Simple is a word with more than one meaning.
I will ignore it if you will stop presenting your assumption as a reasoned extrapolation from observed reality.
The Universe is not a conscious agent schtick. I am not a pantheist.
Assumptions in the above:[ul]
[li]The purpose of diversionary games is to generate happiness.[/li][li]Permanence is a meaningful descriptor for a human emotion.[/li][li]Purpose and the object of desire are synonymous (or at least have a definitive correlation).[/li][li]Happiness is the sole intended consequence of leisure.[/li][li]Kinship has some relationship to happiness (I’m really not sure how kinship relates to your list of “things my analogy says”. Perhaps you could explicate.)[/li][li]Resources have been limited by a conscious entity.[/li][li]The desire to control a limited resource is grounded only in the desire to feel happiness.[/ul][/li]
None, as a general case.
A whole bunch if you present that viewpoint as corresponding to (even being the “only answer to”) human reality.
No. Not interested in eating the pizza if the ingredients are inedible.
I say your OP contains contradictions. You are certainly welcome to dismiss my observation with witty metaphors, but I would find it more interesting if you either reconciled the inconsistencies or demonstrated that my observations were incorrect. The expectations of this forum are that an argument will stand up to reasoned examination. Perhaps you meant to deliver your dish to a different house.
I do not think you are trolling, and I am not troubled by the idea that a debate can be seen as a game. It is not a new game, though. The rules of a debate in this forum have been long established by both dictate from the owners and consensual action by the participants. I have no desire to introduce any new rules.
If you would like to suspend some rules, or change them, then please state so clearly and specifically.
If we forget the explanations and take the assumptions away it implies, quite literally, nothing.
