What does it mean for something to be "logically possible"?

[untermensche]

The other side is: It is impossible for there to be a present moment if the moments in the past are endless.

If there never was a start to existence, then existence has always existed. It didn't start. It always was.

If there was a start (with nothing turning into something), then your argument would be correct.

You have not addressed the point at all by merely repeating the other side of the paradox like a mindless robot.

To address the argument you actually have to address the logic of the argument. You have to address the absurdity of claiming endless moments occurred before any given moment. This merely requires understanding the definition of "endless".

All you are doing is ignorantly using one side of a paradox to claim the other side does not exist.

It is meaningless folly.

You do not have anything that explains the paradox of existence. It is as equally absurd to claim it had a beginning as claim it had none. No side of this paradox has superiority over the other.

 

[untermensche]

Defined by what?

Presence antecedent to life for one.

What can we say about something no human has ever experienced?

Can we define it in some way?

Is undefined nothingness "data"?

 

[fast]

Is there no basis in reality for the number line?

When I (figuratively) hop aboard the number line and begin to roll in my mine shaft cart, I pass -2 then -3 then -4. My intent is to reach the end, but when I pull out my handy dandy and trusty (trusty, I did say trusty, right?) magical telescope, I see that (and clearly see that) there is no end. The number line is (wait for it; wait for it) endless.

But wait a minute, I have no time to travel such a distance. I just wanted to take a quick look-see at the end (to see if it was pointy or squared off). Knowing such a thing is, well, let's just call it an intellectual curiosity.

But wait a minute, is there such a thing at all as a number line? Well, yes and no. We have to be careful when it comes to the nature of reality. We must distinguish brute facts from constitutive facts. Technically, numbers exist, as they have properties, but they're just as constitutive as the number line itself. It's true that the number line is (and here comes that word again) endless. They are because we say they are. That's actually okay to believe just so long as you know how far it can be extended- it's framework dependent. A governor can declare a state of emergency, a preacher can pronounce a couple as married, the president (congress?) can declare war, and a judge can declare a court adjourned. I can't declare a court adjourned. I can say it, but my saying it doesn't make it so. When a judge says it, it's so. As I said, the framework is important. We can create truths by declaration in certain situations, but I digress.

Back to the number line. It's very convenient. It's useful, but does it exist? Yes, we've been there already. Remember, it has properties. Is it real? Well, that's another question. It's not imaginary, so it's real. If it was imaginary, it wouldn't have properties. Okay, let me put the brakes on for a moment. I can smell the steam from the objections filtering through the vents.

The properties themselves have a nature that is substantively different than the properties of material things, so an examination (or an analysis, if you will) may be helpful to put things in perspective. First, some distinctions need to be brought to the forefront. I'm going to use 4 different examples to set the framework for understanding.

(In an upcoming post)

 

[fast]

Unicorns don't exist. Oh, but fast, they have properties!, says Lilly Mae of LA. No no Lilly, they don't. Oh but fast, they do, and I can name one for ya if you like. The horn, yes the horn (Lilly Mae says), it's a property of unicorns! Oh Lilly, Lilly, my sweet flowing blonde haired Lilly. You're not naming a property of unicorns. You're naming what would be a property of unicorns if they did exist. There are no unicorns, ergo, there are no properties of unicorns. (1 of 4)

 

[fast]

Th number three does exist. Molly, what's with that strange look you give me? Where(?), Molly asks. She continues, "Where is the number three? Where is it?" I didn't say that it exists somewhere. I just said that it exists. Molly, in utter bewilderment says, I hate to break it to ya, but if something exists, then it must exist somewhere. Oh pretty pretty, my lovely sweet pretty, it has the property of being an odd number, it has the property of being a multiple of nine, and it has the property of being greater than two, and do recall, and recall with vividness: that which has properties exist. (2 of 4)

 

[fast]

Hey Bob, chairs exist. No shit, Bob says. The leg is a property of the chair. (3 of 4)

 

[Phil Scott]

Th number three does exist. Molly, what's with that strange look you give me? Where(?), Molly asks. She continues, "Where is the number three? Where is it?" I didn't say that it exists somewhere. I just said that it exists. Molly, in utter bewilderment says, I hate to break it to ya, but if something exists, then it must exist somewhere. Oh pretty pretty, my lovely sweet pretty, it has the property of being an odd number, it has the property of being a multiple of nine, and it has the property of being greater than two, and do recall, and recall with vividness: that which has properties exist. (2 of 4)

I've always been partial to the idea that maths is only about as abstract as chess. The black queen does exist. "Where?" asks Molly. Here Molly, on this chessboard I bought yesterday. I'm pointing right at her. A different chess board, a different black queen. And if we're playing Chess in our heads, I won't be able to point.

"And three?" Yes, here are three beans, Molly. Right here on the table, ready for a very small casserole. A different implementation of natural numbers, a different three. And if we're counting in our heads, I won't be able to point.

 

[untermensche]

My intent is to reach the end, but when I pull out my handy dandy and trusty (trusty, I did say trusty, right?) magical telescope, I see that (and clearly see that) there is no end.

How do you "see" it has no end?

All you know, or could ever know, is it goes further than you can see with any instrument, even magic instruments can't "see" "no end".

It is not something that can be seen.

 

[Kharakov]

If there never was a start to existence, then existence has always existed. It didn't start. It always was.

If there was a start (with nothing turning into something), then your argument would be correct.

To address the argument you actually have to address the logic of the argument. You have to address the absurdity of claiming endless moments occurred before any given moment. This merely requires understanding the definition of "endless".

Yeah. Beginless moments have passed, not endless. There wasn't a beginning. There is no paradox: something always existed. Existence didn't start, it always was.

Absolutely no paradox, unless you claim something nonsensical like a beginning to eternal existence (not the same thing as a beginning of an endless existence in eternity- eternal existence > any existence that begins).

 

[fast]

My intent is to reach the end, but when I pull out my handy dandy and trusty (trusty, I did say trusty, right?) magical telescope, I see that (and clearly see that) there is no end.

How do you "see" it has no end?

All you know, or could ever know, is it goes further than you can see with any instrument, even magic instruments can't "see" "no end".

It is not something that can be seen.

I'm not talking about the universe. I'm not talking about time. I'm not talking about distance. I'm talking about something. Specifically, I'm talking about the number line. Now that that's out the way, grasp that my tool of choice shall not be an instrument.

You've made two points. One is correct. We cannot visually see the end. Even if we could see numbers, we still couldn't visually see the end. That sounds true to me, especially in light of the fact THERE IS NO END.

I can see that there is no end, however. Well, I can't visually see something that's not there, but I can mentally grasp or logically conclude that there is no end.

There is no end, and we know this because we say so--an intentional consequence of the declaration. It's a constitutive fact. It's apart of our design. It doesn't matter which way we go. The design is such there is always two numbers adjacent to each number such that the one to the left is lower and the one to the right is higher. Whether numbers in the extreme could reflect the real world is another matter entirely.

- - - Updated - - -

Th number three does exist. Molly, what's with that strange look you give me? Where(?), Molly asks. She continues, "Where is the number three? Where is it?" I didn't say that it exists somewhere. I just said that it exists. Molly, in utter bewilderment says, I hate to break it to ya, but if something exists, then it must exist somewhere. Oh pretty pretty, my lovely sweet pretty, it has the property of being an odd number, it has the property of being a multiple of nine, and it has the property of being greater than two, and do recall, and recall with vividness: that which has properties exist. (2 of 4)

I've always been partial to the idea that maths is only about as abstract as chess. The black queen does exist. "Where?" asks Molly. Here Molly, on this chessboard I bought yesterday. I'm pointing right at her. A different chess board, a different black queen. And if we're playing Chess in our heads, I won't be able to point.

"And three?" Yes, here are three beans, Molly. Right here on the table, ready for a very small casserole. A different implementation of natural numbers, a different three. And if we're counting in our heads, I won't be able to point.

Abstraction versus abstract object

 

[fromderinside]

Here's another example: evidence. Anything can be used as evidence when it's used to support a claim, but facts not being used to support any claims isn't evidence. For instance, as I happenchance to look at a flower that has petals, the petals are not evidence. When you come along and proclaim that it is evidence but have no claim to support with it, it's not evidence until you later decide to use those facts to support some claim.

I came along and pointed out his observation wasn't proper, there is no evidence data only exists when it is observed. Then I went on to present an alternative view that data are connected to properties of matter and energy.

I think I was the one who brought of necessity of existence for one to have subjective experience.

- - - Updated - - -

Unless everything is from another mind, matter and it's properties exist.
Data is an attribute of properties of matter.
Ergo data exists

He isn't saying that matter isn't a necessary condition of data but rather that it's not a sufficient condition of data.

Take ice as an example. Water isn't ice until it's frozen. He's arguing that matter isn't data until it's observed.

I'll be more direct then. Observations and states are two different things, so your point is not taken.

 

[fromderinside]

He isn't saying that matter isn't a necessary condition of data but rather that it's not a sufficient condition of data.

Take ice as an example. Water isn't ice until it's frozen. He's arguing that matter isn't data until it's observed.

I'm going to quibble here. Water is, it's state of ice is dependent on the temperature in which water exists as well the pressure in which water exists. Since factors like temperature, volume, and pressure also exist their interaction with water can provide conditions for a water state of ice. But ice exists as a property of water.

Matter is a form like ice that exists in some energy states of temperature pressure and volume at 1880 blush.

I think of data as something that applies to all energy. energy has the property data. At least it makes thermodynamic sense.

I understood his argument. My point was that his observation depending on observing was improper. Data exists as a property of matter and energy. It does not take a mind to observe for thereto be data. I think I had already made that clear when I pointed out that subjective depends on existence.

Put another way data is a property of energy
Amind is a result, in the case of humans, of matter evolving a mind
Since data is a property of energy inserting a mind to observe it is unnecessary for data to exist.

 

[fast]

I'm going to quibble here. Water is, it's state of ice is dependent on the temperature in which water exists as well the pressure in which water exists. Since factors like temperature, volume, and pressure also exist their interaction with water can provide conditions for a water state of ice. But ice exists as a property of water.

Matter is a form like ice that exists in some energy states of temperature pressure and volume at 1880 blush.

I think of data as something that applies to all energy. energy has the property data. At least it makes thermodynamic sense.

I understood his argument. My point was that his observation depending on observing was improper. Data exists as a property of matter and energy. It does not take a mind to observe for thereto be data. I think I had already made that clear when I pointed out that subjective depends on existence.

Put another way data is a property of energy
Amind is a result, in the case of humans, of matter evolving a mind
Since data is a property of energy inserting a mind to observe it is unnecessary for data to exist.

Calculus can involve calculating the rate of change. Let's suppose we want to calculate the rate of change of your weight with a new weight loss program. Everyday at noon, you will write down some numbers that reflect your weight, as expressed in pounds by the scale you'll use. You'll do it for a week starting tomorrow. Tomorrow, you'll weigh yourself and notice that the scale says you weigh 214 pounds. The number you'll write down is 214.

X1=214 (pronounced as X denote one equals two hundred fourteen)
Pretend the 1 is a subscript (smaller and low)

What is X2? We won't know until the next day.

Now, let's zoom in and examine the nature of reality (in terms of truth and knowledge) the moment right before you stepped on the scale and the moment when you saw your weight as registered by the scale.

A) Before you stepped on the scale, it was true that you weighed 214 pounds.
B) Before you stepped on the scale, you did not know that you weighed 214 pounds.
C) After you stepped on the scale, it was true that you weighed 214 pounds.
D) After you stepped on the scale, you did know that you weighed 214 pounds.

Notice that A is true even though B is true. That is because truth is independent of knowledge. In fact, D couldn't have been true had C not been true.

Now, let's look at this in terms of data so we can all see where the problem lies.

It wasn't until after you stood on the scale that you learned what number to write down, so to you, before you stepped on the scale, the truth of how much you weigh is uncollected data, but here's the thing, there is no data until after you stepped on the scale. You would be arguing that it is data and that we just don't know what it is yet. He is saying we can't rightly call something data until after we collect it.

Yes, if I drop marbles on the floor, there is a number of marbles on the floor, but data is a post observation phenomena (or concurrent observation phenomena). There is no so-to-speak data to be collected. It becomes data as the written record is formed. When astronomers gaze at the stars, their computers records and stores what we call data, but the term applied only to that which is recorded. It doesn't extend to the worlds state of affairs that allowed for it.

 

[fromderinside]

It comes back to data existing before it is observed fast. We all understand his subjective argument that it is not data to the observer until the observer observes it. However the world does not depend on the observer and matter's properties exist in spite of that. Secondly, weight is a relative to where the observer is located. Mass is the data which is fixed relative to matter. Weight, on the other hand, is mass in gravity field of other mass it is a property of mass and gravity associated with mass. Humans are not the cause nor arbiter of data, humans are users of data when they begin to understand it. If data did not exist humans could not use it.

All this is getting around to the notion that subjective is dependent on existence . At best we are observers of what exists.

 

[Phil Scott]

Abstraction versus abstract object

I like to think that logic and computer science have got this one. Abstraction just means replacing some values with a variable, and suitably quantifying. The bound variable is now abstract.

There's a classic paper called "abstract types have existential type", which goes to show that, in an inescapable sense, abstraction is specifically existential quantification. Rather than my saying that I have three beans, I say that I have something that meets some specification for three. Reasoning about this something is reasoning in the abstract, and about an abstract object.

 

[fast]

Abstraction versus abstract object

I like to think that logic and computer science have got this one. Abstraction just means replacing some values with a variable, and suitably quantifying. The bound variable is now abstract.

There's a classic paper called "abstract types have existential type", which goes to show that, in an inescapable sense, abstraction is specifically existential quantification. Rather than my saying that I have three beans, I say that I have something that meets some specification for three. Reasoning about this something is reasoning in the abstract, and about an abstract object.

I think of mental objects like thoughts, ideas, and concepts as being mind dependent and thus brain dependent.

I think of abstract objects like numbers as something that is not brain dependent.

"Abstract" is ambiguous. If we're talking about something that is abstract like mental objects, then we're talking about an abstraction, but if we're talking about something that is abstract like numbers, then we're talking about an abstract object.

 

[fast]

It comes back to data existing before it is observed fast.

Something exists before it is observed, but the written record of what exists does not.

We all understand his subjective argument that it is not data to the observer until the observer observes it.

You added the "to the observer" and finding the argument subjective.

However the world does not depend on the observer and matter's properties exist in spite of that.

But the written record does depend on the observer.

We couldn't have a written record of something unless there was something to have a written record of, but he's applying the term "data" exclusively to the written record--not to what the written record is a record of.

That was a tad bit altered for clarity sake. If I observe something and my pencil breaks before recording the data, the data still exists so long as I remember and can recall what would have been recorded.

If I'm shot before I record the data, the data is gone until the facts that give rise to the data is observed again.

 

[fromderinside]

Fast wrote

If I'm shot before I record the data, the data is gone until the facts that give rise to the data is observed again.

Yes there is no record of your observation of that data. But, as you follow up, the data is still there for others to observe and report giving testimony that data exists without observation and that it will be the same data given the same observation.

 

[fast]

Fast wrote

If I'm shot before I record the data, the data is gone until the facts that give rise to the data is observed again.

Yes there is no record of your observation of that data. But, as you follow up, the data is still there for others to observe and report giving testimony that data exists without observation and that it will be the same data given the same observation.

I added a layer between unobserved yet recordable facts (facts not yet risen to the status of data) and recording observed facts (data recorded). If I'm shot (in the interim between observing the facts and making a written record of those facts), then what's in memory is gone. What's in memory is the unwritten data--which is still actually data, despite the required conception that it be recorded because it exists post observation. Either way, prior to observation of facts, there is no written record of what is observed, and that's an important distinction marked by our usage of the term data.

 

[fromderinside]

Fast wrote

Yes there is no record of your observation of that data. But, as you follow up, the data is still there for others to observe and report giving testimony that data exists without observation and that it will be the same data given the same observation.

I added a layer between unobserved yet recordable facts (facts not yet risen to the status of data) and recording observed facts (data recorded). If I'm shot (in the interim between observing the facts and making a written record of those facts), then what's in memory is gone. What's in memory is the unwritten data--which is still actually data, despite the required conception that it be recorded because it exists post observation. Either way, prior to observation of facts, there is no written record of what is observed, and that's an important distinction marked by our usage of the term data.

Adding interventions doesn't help if what you are inserting aren't necessary in the first place.