Pluralism, Not Relativism

[aurum]

4 hours ago, zurew said:

I dont understand this "unfalsifiability" claim - is that just used as "logical necessity"?

The other part thats unclear to me is why would we accept the claim that infinity is logically necessary?

"Unfalsifiability" and "logical necessity" are related but not the same.

Unfalsifiability means that what I am describing must be absolutely true. If something is absolutely true, it cannot be proven untrue under any circumstances.

Notice that the existence of consciousness itself is unfalsifiable. Everything in your conscious field is literally exactly as it is. Furthermore, anything you imagine that could be outside of consciousness must be in consciousness, otherwise it could not be experienced. Even if consciousness were a simulation, the simulation itself must still exist and be experienced. You have never had an experience outside of consciousness. Ever. 100%.

"Logical necessity" refers more to the structure of Infinity / God itself. Infinity is logically necessarily because you logically cannot have a universe from arise from a finite thing. Eventually, you just have to admit that there must be an infinite something, even if you just imagine that something to be a static, eternal void.

4 hours ago, zurew said:

The whole hypothetical stipulates that the entity is all knowing which means it knows all truths, which means that it cant be wrong.

You are stipulating something impossible.

If an entity knew all truths, it could not be a finite entity. Because to know all truths would require an infinite perspective, which no finite entity can have. To be an entity is literally to have a specific perspective. You can only have infinite perspective as an infinite object. But then you will not be an entity.

And if you still want to claim that this entity knows all truths, then I just claim that your proposed entity is God. Because to be God is to have infinite perspective.

Edited May 23 by aurum

[zurew]

4 hours ago, aurum said:

Unfalsifiability means that what I am describing must be absolutely true. If something is absolutely true, it cannot be proven untrue under any circumstances.

I don't know how you can establish in principle that something is unfalsifiable - I know how to establish that something is logically necessary.

4 hours ago, aurum said:

Unfalsifiability means that what I am describing must be absolutely true. If something is absolutely true, it cannot be proven untrue under any circumstances.

Notice that the existence of consciousness itself is unfalsifiable. Everything in your conscious field is literally exactly as it is. Furthermore, anything you imagine that could be outside of consciousness must be in consciousness, otherwise it could not be experienced. Even if consciousness were a simulation, the simulation itself must still exist and be experienced. You have never had an experience outside of consciousness. Ever. 100%.

Yeah sure, if  unfalsifiability is just something absolutely true and absolutely true just means that 'it cannot be proven untrue under any circumstances' sure that seems intelligible to me, but thats just seems to be a claim about the limits of epistemology (what can and cannot be proven) and thats different from saying that  that something cannot be false (Because that would be a logical necessity claim).

4 hours ago, aurum said:

Infinity is logically necessarily because you logically cannot have a universe from arise from a finite thing

Why would I think that the Universe  arose at all? Like why shouldn't I think that the Universe itself is eternal?

4 hours ago, aurum said:

"Logical necessity" refers more to the structure of Infinity / God itself. Infinity is logically necessarily because you logically cannot have a universe from arise from a finite thing. Eventually, you just have to admit that there must be an infinite something, even if you just imagine that something to be a static, eternal void.

You use the term "logical necessity" with a completely different meaning than how it is used, which is fine, but the implications that will come from putting that label on something (using your meaning)  will be completely different.

Your use of 'finite' is also unique, because by that you just mean something that is not infinity. Most people would probably agree that if something has at least one quality that is infinite , that thing wouldn't be categorized as finite anymore.

But im not sure what you grant there - do you grant that if it is a void (that is absent from many qualities compared to infinity, but it has at least a few dimensions to it that is infinite (timelessness and the space it occupies is infinite) - then thats good enough for logical necessity (under how you use that term?)

 

4 hours ago, aurum said:

You are stipulating something impossible.

If an entity knew all truths, it could not be a finite entity. Because to know all truths would require an infinite perspective, which no finite entity can have. To be an entity is literally to have a specific perspective. You can only have infinite perspective as an infinite object. But then you will not be an entity.

And if you still want to claim that this entity knows all truths, then I just claim that your proposed entity is God. Because to be God is to have infinite perspective.

I can outline a path you can take  starting with establishing point 1 and then after you succeed in that, we can go to point 2 and then after that go to point 3:

1) I reject the idea that you need to have infinite perspective in order to know all things. By knowing all things I just mean knowing all true propositions. Why would perspective taking be required in order to be in possession of all true propositions?

2) I grant that you need to have infinite perspectives in order to know all things, but I reject that you need to be infinity in order to have all perspectives. From the start I will have issues with you proposing that a non-entity (object) can have and take perspectives. 

3) I grant that you need to be infinity in order to have infinite perspectives, and I grant that to know all things you would need to have infinite perspectives, but at the end of the day thats all irrelevant:

• Because it doesn't establish that Christianity or any other views are impossible, it would just mean that if any of those views were true , they couldnt establish using their own epistemic toolset that they are true with 100% certainty.
• The entity only needs to know 2 (or a finite amount) of true propositions and not infinitely many - 1 about metaphysics and 1 about epistemology. 

 

And assuming that you manage to establish and respond to all of the above -  I will still have issues with certainty when it comes to the idea that God cannot be deceived or wrong about anything especially related to how he knows and how much he knows. Like how does God know that he is all-knowing, how does God know that he cannot be deceived, How does God know that he is infinity etc.

Edited May 23 by zurew

[zurew]

2 hours ago, zurew said:

And assuming that you manage to establish and respond to all of the above -  I will still have issues with certainty when it comes to the idea that God cannot be deceived or wrong about anything especially related to how he knows and how much he knows. Like how does God know that he is all-knowing, how does God know that he cannot be deceived, How does God know that he is infinity etc.

Like - how do you rule out scenarios where God is right about everything except a few propositions?

And how do you respond to cartesian scenarios in general (all you have is your mind and there is no outside world or anything or anyone outisde you that you could use to check the validity of beliefs that you have about the content of your self and about your mind).  

 

Btw given that you invoked and defined falsifiability - I take cartesian scenarios to be unfalsifiable. It seems that whatever reasoning you will provide will all be compatible with being a brain in a vat or with being in a simulation and having a bunch of false beliefs about yourself and about the world.

Edited May 23 by zurew

[aurum]

10 hours ago, zurew said:

Yeah sure, if  unfalsifiability is just something absolutely true and absolutely true just means that 'it cannot be proven untrue under any circumstances' sure that seems intelligible to me, but thats just seems to be a claim about the limits of epistemology (what can and cannot be proven) and thats different from saying that  that something cannot be false (Because that would be a logical necessity claim).

No.

Unfalsifiability, in the way I am using it, accounts for all limitations of epistemology.

10 hours ago, zurew said:

Why would I think that the Universe  arose at all? Like why shouldn't I think that the Universe itself is eternal?

1) It is eternal

2) It must necessarily be eternal for the reason I just pointed out. No finite thing can be the cause of the universe. Therefore, the universe must be an infinite thing, which also necessarily must be eternal.

10 hours ago, zurew said:

But im not sure what you grant there - do you grant that if it is a void (that is absent from many qualities compared to infinity, but it has at least a few dimensions to it that is infinite (timelessness and the space it occupies is infinite) - then thats good enough for logical necessity (under how you use that term?)

I claim the Void is identical to infinity. True infinity must include Void but also all form.

10 hours ago, zurew said:

1) I reject the idea that you need to have infinite perspective in order to know all things. By knowing all things I just mean knowing all true propositions. Why would perspective taking be required in order to be in possession of all true propositions?

How else could you know anything without a perspective? Give me a counter-example.

All knowledge requires a perspective. And all things are true because they exist.

So if you want to know all possible true things, that's the equivalent of saying you want an infinity of perspectives. 

10 hours ago, zurew said:

2) I grant that you need to have infinite perspectives in order to know all things, but I reject that you need to be infinity in order to have all perspectives. From the start I will have issues with you proposing that a non-entity (object) can have and take perspectives. 

Infinity contains all possible perspectives, because all that exists are different finite perspectives.

On the one hand, infinity does not take a finite perspective per se, since that's the one thing an infinite object cannot do.

On the other hand, it is all finite perspectives, so it is taking on finite perspectives through finiteness.

This is where dualistic language becomes very tricky.

10 hours ago, zurew said:

3) I grant that you need to be infinity in order to have infinite perspectives, and I grant that to know all things you would need to have infinite perspectives, but at the end of the day thats all irrelevant:

Because it doesn't establish that Christianity or any other views are impossible, it would just mean that if any of those views were true , they couldnt establish using their own epistemic toolset that they are true with 100% certainty.

The entity only needs to know 2 (or a finite amount) of true propositions and not infinitely many - 1 about metaphysics and 1 about epistemology. 

It does establish other views are impossible. Because other views would have to violate the basic logic I've laid out here.

Christianity violates the logic that everything must necessarily be God by claiming somethings are God and others aren't. 

This is the one mistake you cannot make. And yet nearly everyone makes it.

10 hours ago, zurew said:

And assuming that you manage to establish and respond to all of the above -  I will still have issues with certainty when it comes to the idea that God cannot be deceived or wrong about anything especially related to how he knows and how much he knows. Like how does God know that he is all-knowing, how does God know that he cannot be deceived, How does God know that he is infinity etc. 

God can be self-deceived. That's exactly what your life is.

You are God, self-deceived that you are not.

The end.

[zurew]

1 hour ago, aurum said:

All knowledge requires a perspective. And all things are true because they exist.

So if you want to know all possible true things, that's the equivalent of saying you want an infinity of perspectives. 

Do you have a defense for the claim, that knowledge requires perspective?

Also, do you have a defense for the claim that "all things are true because they exist"?

1 hour ago, aurum said:

Christianity violates the logic that everything must necessarily be God by claiming somethings are God and others aren't. 

I can see multiple contentious point built in your statement, so I will ask for a supporting argument for each:

Whats the argument for the claim that everything must necessarily be God?

Whats the argument that the term 'everything' refers to  infinity and not to anything less than infinity?

1 hour ago, aurum said:

God can be self-deceived. That's exactly what your life is.

You are God, self-deceived that you are not.

The end.

That alone seems to lead to a contradiction (God is all knowing and at the same time he is self-deceived) - so that alone would be a big problem for your view, but aside from that , your answer doesn't reply to the problem (because your answer presuppose that his nature is infinity and that he is self-deceived about by thinking he is not infinity - but thats exactly whats in question)

The question is about reversed scenarios  -  how do you rule out the scenarios , where God's real nature isn't infinity, and he isn't all knowing at all,  and the only reason why he thinks that he is infinity and that he is all-knowing is because he is self-deceived about all those things?

 

Edited May 23 by zurew

[zurew]

1 hour ago, aurum said:

Give me a counter-example.

An unconscious robot or a book can contain all true facts.

Me having a perspective only provides me certain things, but when it comes to knowing facts about myself - I am pretty fking limited (even though I have my own perspective)

And when it comes to true propositions - from all the thing you guys have talked about - even in God mode none of you know all true propositions, you have a completely different knowledge.

Edited May 23 by zurew

[zurew]

12 hours ago, zurew said:

The entity only needs to know 2 (or a finite amount) of true propositions and not infinitely many - 1 about metaphysics and 1 about epistemology. 

This is another point that I would need an answer for.

How do you rule out scearios where not all knowing entities creating things?

[integral]

3 hours ago, zurew said:

Me having a perspective only provides me certain things, but when it comes to knowing facts about myself - I am pretty fking limited (even though I have my own perspective)

If direct experience is not a considered a valid form of epistemology then you could always doubt everything in philosophy till the end of time. doubtdoubtdoubtdoubtdoubt forever.

Its always possible to criticize one perspective from another perspective. Endlessly.

Relativity hell.

So what you got to do is see the landscape of the different perspectives each one with a different epistemology and create a meta epistemology that pieces everything together into one larger perspective that incorporates every other perspective Intelligently.

At some point you recognize the truth of a larger more inclusive paradigm.

---

Why was the descartes wrong? Who employed "Radical" doubt.

He's trying to find certainty for his own existence by finding something undoubtable. Whose existence? What kind of existence? Am I part of that existence, or just an illusion within it? Could this all be a dream or simulation?

When existence is self-evident. A tautology. Existence exists. It is knowable as true when you recognize it right in front of you.

The problem was he was Paradigm locked and cannot see or accept direct experience as useful epistemology for anything.

Because you could simply doubt it from another perspective

I think therefore I am, was his conclusion. This is the epitome of Relativity hell. He could not see beyond thinking. So thinking is the ground of all of reality from his point of view.

The Paradigm that you think you're way too all solutions and answers.

---

How do you figure out that existence something self-evident is infinite?

With more self-evidence! That's where all the absolutes are.

Thinking is still very useful, and all your insights will come from it, But most of the time you're just unraveling all of your own baggage that stops you from seeing the truth.

Right now you could think infinite number of numbers, You can just keep inventing numbers forever, that is the self-evidence clue that imagination is infinite. its also a uncorrupting of a previously held frame. The purification of your current frame.

You go about Gathering all of these epistemic Clues until you see the whole elephant.

Edited May 23 by integral

[aurum]

2 hours ago, zurew said:

Do you have a defense for the claim, that knowledge requires perspective?

Also, do you have a defense for the claim that "all things are true because they exist"?

Think about it.

When have you ever experienced knowledge outside a perspective? Try to image a counter-possibility.

Notice that whatever you are thinking of is a perspective.

All things are true because they exist exactly as whatever they are. Whatever way it is, it is true as that, tautologically.

2 hours ago, zurew said:

Whats the argument for the claim that everything must necessarily be God?

Whats the argument that the term 'everything' refers to  infinity and not to anything less than infinity?

What does it mean when we say something is 'God'?

It usually refers to something that is omnipotent, eternal, omniscience, Perfect Love, Perfect Goodness, etc.

All of that is exactly what it means for a thing to be infinite. So if there's an infinity, the infinity is God.

And infinity includes ALL by definition, so everything is infinity, is God.

You could make another definition of infinity, but this would just kick the can down the road of the problem of how anything can exist.

The only way you can have anything is if you eventually agree to the existence of infinity.

2 hours ago, zurew said:

That alone seems to lead to a contradiction (God is all knowing and at the same time he is self-deceived) - so that alone would be a big problem for your view, but aside from that , your answer doesn't reply to the problem (because your answer presuppose that his nature is infinity and that he is self-deceived about by thinking he is not infinity - but thats exactly whats in question)

There is no contradiction.

The genius of self-deception is that it does not require a change in your fundamental nature. 

Notice that if you became self-deceived enough that you were a fish, you would still not be a fish.

So God can be all-knowing but use deception to limit itself.

It's the perfect solution.

Again, It only seems like I'm presupposing things because you are refusing to accept the importance of direct consciousness, like a stubborn fool. 

2 hours ago, zurew said:

The question is about reversed scenarios  -  how do you rule out the scenarios , where God's real nature isn't infinity, and he isn't all knowing at all,  and the only reason why he thinks that he is infinity and that he is all-knowing is because he is self-deceived about all those things?

If God is finite, then who made God???

You cannot escape infinity.

2 hours ago, zurew said:

An unconscious robot or a book can contain all true facts.

No it cannot.

1) Your book is limited by the knowledge of the authors who wrote it, who process finite knowledge

2) Your book is limited by physical material. It cannot have infinite physical pages or  infinite digital storage

3) Your book cannot account for subjective, 1st-person BEING level truths. Like the truth of what it's like to feel an emotion

Same problems for the robot.

The only way you can contain all truth is if you literally are Infinite.

[zurew]

Okay, now we are going to get very linear, and clear on definitions and  im not going to entertain you giving a question as an answer to my questions, and im not going to accept question-begging arguments - because anyone can do that its very easy - Christians can do that as well.

This reliance on question-begging arguments and ambiguity in langauge and answering questions with questions does 99.999% of the work to all of you, im sorry, none of this is profound or interesting.

2 hours ago, aurum said:

What does it mean when we say something is 'God'?

It usually refers to something that is omnipotent, eternal, omniscience, Perfect Love, Perfect Goodness, etc.

All of that is exactly what it means for a thing to be infinite. So if there's an infinity, the infinity is God.

And infinity includes ALL by definition, so everything is infinity, is God.

You are jumping between infinite and infinity - what is the exact definition that you want to go with? 

Lets stick to the term 'infinity' and lets define it and then let me see you provide a non-question begging argument that establish how infinity is logically necessary if you still want to go with that claim.

[Keryo Koffa]

@integral @zurew Let me share some Medicine 💜 (arguing be like XD)

Edited May 24 by Keryo Koffa

[zurew]

@integral You are lost and not tracking the conversation. 

The point is not to play the skeptic game, the point is to hold your feet to the fire with respect to the gravity of the claims you are making.

If you want to make the claim that its impossible for you to be wrong , then let me see you establish and defend that claim and let me not see you dance around and let me not see you answer my questions with questions and with question-begging arguments.

 

If claims are made where you are open to the possibility of being wrong - I dont use this level of skeptcisism and this level of requirement for those claims.

Edited May 24 by zurew

[zurew]

10 minutes ago, integral said:

I choose specifically not to write with that style because it obfuscates. It's a conscious decision and choice

Whatever Im asking for is not that.

But whatever happens on this forum is 99% gibberation and almost no one can even spell out the inference that they are making.

Again this over reliance on ambigous language is what makes philosophy nothing more than an uninteresting language game, where the substance of the claims you are making is almost nothing.

[integral]

@zurew I think there's plenty of room for the level of rigor you want to bring here, and I agree with it for the most part when it's appropriate, but I think it can be used wildly, leaving no room for anything really that isn't academic perfect writing. 

There is a certain extent to take it and then there's taking it too far.

I do agree that most spiritual type people are hiding behind lofty language.

I like that there's academically-minded people on the forum because we need diversity in perspectives.

Edited May 24 by integral

[aurum]

@zurew 

I've made my points as clear as I can and you obviously still don't agree. Let's just move on.

I appreciate the spirited debate.

 

[zurew]

3 minutes ago, aurum said:

@zurew 

I've made my points as clear as I can and you obviously still don't agree. Let's just move on.

I appreciate the spirited debate.

Sure lets move on, I derailed this thread pretty well, again @DocWatts sorry  for that.

[zurew]

Just for the memes btw.

This is what I see before clarity is applied and after (glasses on) clarity is applied to an argument here:

 

[integral]

@zurew lmAOOOOO it must be tough being a living calculator.

56 minutes ago, Keryo Koffa said:

@integral @zurew Let me share some Medicine 💜 (arguing be like XD)

That video had some good moments 😆

Edited May 24 by integral

[zurew]

6 minutes ago, integral said:

@zurew lmAOOOOO it must be tough being a living calculator

Its not about my character or math, its suppossed to be a metaphor about the subtance of arguments in general.

How profound and deep they sound and how much they promise before clarity and after clarity is applied its revealed that beneath they were an assembled mess all along hidden behind big words.

[integral]

41 minutes ago, zurew said:

Its not about my character or math, its suppossed to be a metaphor about the subtance of arguments in general.

How profound and deep they sound and how much they promise before clarity and after clarity is applied its revealed that beneath they were an assembled mess all along hidden behind big words.

I'm sure you feel this way about Leo in certain areas?

What part of Leos body of work actually fits in your models?

Edited Saturday at 03:18 AM by integral