DescentBB

Yes, it's time for round two in the existential debate. I've been giving it some thought as of late, and have altered my mindset somewhat... though I must say, the possibility of existing alone in nothingness still plagues my every waking moment. It isn't an easy notion to dispel, and more's the pity. I now present you with a postulation, of sorts:

I, as a thought-form, randomly and subconsciously imagine/construct a universe and place a \"sock puppet\", so to speak, within this universe as a place of residence for \"me\", the \"human soul\"... this being merely a watered-/dumbed- down form of the original thought-form, a thought-form in a dreamlike state or literal \"virtual reality\", a thought-form that is at best only a shadow of its true self due to the inherent grandiose level of self-deception taking place. In essence, my consciousness is a fragment of something more, an entity far more complex. I can never know this for certain in my present state, because my true self has basically made it impossible for my present self to be able to comprehend something on such a scale. In other words, the \"real\" me is basically a being of unimaginable capability, and I/it made \"this\" me for whatever reasons might exist, or possibly for no reason whatsoever. The only bad thing about this is the possibility that my \"current\" self might possibly be nothing more than a tool, an extension, the \"sock puppet\". What happens when I reconverge with the original entity? Do I cease to exist? Do I regain all of \"my\" knowledge and abilities? Do I combine with the original entity to form a new, completely different one? Do I retain anything I have experienced/learned in this existence as a mere human? It begs consideration.

Of course, there are, by default, an infinite number of variations on this supposition. You are more than welcome to suggest any that come to mind which might appear more feasible, if that is even possible. I happen to think all possibilities are equally feasible/viable, although perhaps to varying degrees of desirability for obvious reasons. However, choosing to believe any one possibility is entirely based upon opinion and personal predisposition and preference, and as such is an unnecessary bias, although equally unavoidable, as it is just as effective as deciding by chance alone (i.e. drawing a slip of paper at random from a hat). I suppose the obvious method to ensure objectivity and simultaneously satisfy one's personal preferences equally would be to believe nothing, which is more or less where I stand currently. How droll.

A quick disclaimer - by \"more or less\", I of course mean that I choose to believe nothing in particular, save that there are infinite possibilities, all of which are equally possible, feasible, viable and so on and so forth. I initially thought that this would be apparent from the preceding paragraph, but as this is the DBB, I must endeavour to make myself quite clear from the start. The \"Ethics and Commentary\" board is notorious for open interpretation of just about anything, after all. No hard feelings, as it does make for interesting posts.

MD-1118, if you don't stop posting these I'm going to come to your house and prove that you do not exist alone!

I will whoop your *** so thoroughly you will begin to suspect that there is a definite purpose to my life!

You are not alone because you are not smart enough to invent me.

...and yet you find it hard to believe that GOD created the universe. .... go figure.

Will Robinson wrote:You are not alone because you are not smart enough to invent me.

Actually, if I can randomly dream about a situation that occurs at a later point in my life, which has happened on several occasions (and is what some people call precognition, but I believe is actually closer to what master chess players do when they play "several moves in advance"), then theoretically I could invent you. Besides, if such is the case, and my current self is just a fragment of my "total" self, and there is no way of knowing the full extent of the capabilities of this "total self", then it is possible, and that's all I'm saying. I don't particularly believe this any more than I believe in God, or the universe, or myself, or anything else. It is possible, though, and as such cannot be discounted. That's a half a point for you, Duper. I think it's just as likely that God exists as anything else. I don't find it hard to believe that God created the universe... I find anything hard to believe, so I don't.

Oh, and Thorne, you're more than welcome to stop by my place anytime. What you think and do is your business, and I'm not trying to dissuade you from such. I'm merely postulating. Thinking and theorising is all I have, and it's what I do best. Still, if you were to "whoop my ass" it wouldn't prove anything. I would feel it, but as I've said before, sensory perceptions are simple and easily simulated and reproduced. I'm sure you're aware of the "brain in a jar" concept.

Your use of \"essay\" in the title makes me wonder if you know what an essay is.

Jeff250 wrote:Your use of "essay" in the title makes me wonder if you know what an essay is.

Wiki wrote:An essay is usually a short piece of writing. It is often written from an author's personal point of view. Essays can be literary criticism, political manifestos, learned arguments, observations of daily life, recollections, and reflections of the author.

I'm just having fun with you, MD-1118.

MD-1118 wrote:Still, if you were to "whoop my ass" it wouldn't prove anything. I would feel it, but as I've said before, sensory perceptions are simple and easily simulated and reproduced. I'm sure you're aware of the "brain in a jar" concept.

No way. I guarantee results, or your money back! Hey, you never know 'till you try...

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I'm just having fun with you, MD-1118.

Yes, I know. As to the guaranteed results, however, I never paid anything in the first place, so how can I get my money back? Besides, I'm serious about sensory perceptions. They aren't solid, reliable data.

That means there is no such thing as solid reliable data, because everything goes back to sensory perception. It's a useless theory.

You're partly correct. There appears to be no such thing as solid, reliable data, but that's only because currently there is no known way to affirm that data is solid and reliable. There is a possibility that such a way exists, however... ergo, the theory is actually quite useful. It helps keep one openminded and objective.

Agreed about the sensory perceptions, and reliable data. Your perceptions tell you that a table is a solid object, but we know that aint so…

All that we know about this universe is perceived thru the tiny portholes we call our senses, and then analyzed by the tiny thing we call our brains.

I was going to say minds, but I changed mine.

I'm glad someone understands the concept. That's one down, several billion to go...

Of course, you know that you only exist if someone else can actually observe you, not counting your own eyes. You already see and think that you may exist, but that's not reliable proof is it? The Schrodinger's Cat Paradox.

tunnelcat wrote:Of course, you know that you only exist if someone else can actually observe you, not counting your own eyes. You already see and think that you may exist, but that's not reliable proof is it? The Schrodinger's Cat Paradox.

You're exactly right, Tunnelcat. That's why I don't claim to exist.

Just for the record I do claim to exist. My presumption knows no bounds, apparently.

The beauty of it all, Thorne, is that you have the prerogative to do so. If you wish to be presumptuous, why then, that's your business. After all, if you really don't exist, then it doesn't matter what you think. Still, I don't see anything wrong with entertaining ideas. That's what postulating and theorising is all about - considering possibilities and "what if"s. For example...

On occasion, I like to think of existence as an unimaginably massive box of assorted chocolates. You only get one at a time, and each one is randomly selected. Some of them are pretty bad, but the good ones make up for it. This continues ad infinitum. Now, here's the correlation:

Existence is, as I said, the unimaginably massive box of assorted chocolates. Each individual chocolate is a possible reality. You get one chocolate at a time (i.e., you get to experience each reality individually or separately). Some of these realities suck and account for a miserable existence, but there are also blissfully wonderful realities in which everything happens perfectly, as well as every gradient and medium in between extremities. This continues indefinitely due to the infinite possibilities theory.

As I've stated countless times before, I don't believe in anything in particular (once again, due to the infinite possibilities theory), but this is one possibility I like to contemplate. It's fair, complete and not only gives one a purpose but something to which one can look forward as well.

A compelling thought: infinite possibilities dictate that at some point, not only will I experience the exact same thing as any given person at any given time or place (say for example, Spidey during lunch this afternoon), I will also be that person. The same is applicable to every person who ever has, ever will, currently does or possibly could exist. This is either extremely fascinating or extremely disturbing, I haven't decided which as of yet... although in the case of Spidey, I would be inclined to say fascinating. Thorne, on the other hand...

Now, before anyone says it...

Forrest Gump wrote:Momma always said, life is like a box of chocolates...

and of course

Forrest Gump wrote:You ain't got no legs, Lieutentant Dan!

To a point I agree with you--it is healthy to look at things that most take for granted, however...

MD-1118 wrote:Existence is, as I said, the unimaginably massive box of assorted chocolates. Each individual chocolate is a possible reality. You get one chocolate at a time (i.e., you get to experience each reality individually or separately). Some of these realities suck and account for a miserable existence, but there are also blissfully wonderful realities in which everything happens perfectly, as well as every gradient and medium in between extremities. This continues indefinitely due to the infinite possibilities theory.

This is a good example of a musing or a theory that is actually harmful. I strongly believe that to a great degree our life--our reality, if you like--is what we make it. We have a choice--we have a will, and with a few scriptural (spiritual) exceptions we are responsible for what our life is and will become. Of course our life is effected by actions of others, but even then it still depends a great deal on how we handle that interaction.

Like I've said before, exploration is a thing best done outside of the confines of your own mind.

That's true to a degree, Thorne... but you can only have so much sway in any given situation. No one is omnipotent.

I'm not suggesting that we are or should be, but what we get out of any situation in particular, or our life as a whole, depends a great deal on what we take into it.

If a life sucks, for instance, it's not because it's a dark chocolate (yuck), but more than likely it's a result of how you've been living it. Circumstances may not always be ideal, thus your obvious lack of omnipotence, but how you perceive and deal with, and what you get out of them can still be good.

I couldn't put a measurement on it, but perception is a large part of our reality. It doesn't change what color the sky is, but it affects everything we feel or otherwise derive concerning that color.

The key, Thorne, is to realise that you have to have the bad with the good, since they make each other possible. If a person can accept the bad things, they'll still suck but as long as you appreciate the necessity of the negative, the outcome will still be positive. Maybe that's what you were trying to say. If so, then I'm glad we agree.

Well, **** happens, but it happens for a reason, not because it's an integral part of reality. The Holocaust didn't happen because you have to \"have the bad with the good,\" it happened because certain people with terribly wrong ideas (an incorrect perception of reality, if you will) went and did it.

It looks to me like your ideas here are just a bunch of crazy, simplistic, sci-fi explanations for aspects of reality that you can't reconcile (things which you probably shouldn't be concerning yourself with anyway, as you obviously don't have the faculties to deal with it now).

MD, as entertaining as your "essaying" has been, I have to take issue with this one:

MD-1118 wrote:A compelling thought: infinite possibilities dictate that at some point, not only will I experience the exact same thing as any given person at any given time or place (say for example, Spidey during lunch this afternoon), I will also be that person.

Your logic is flawed.

Say S is the set of infinite possibilities (your infinite box of chocolates, if you will), and every second for eternity you are randomly selected one of those possibilities.

Now, it does not follow that every possibility (every chocolate) will eventually be selected. For a given possibility p, there are actually infinitely many scenarios within an infinite subset of S where p is never selected. A little study of infinite sets should show you this.

------

And a simple counter-example:

Say S is the set of every possibility, R is any infinite subset of S (e.g. the infinite set of chocolates you get) and p is any given possibility within S. Now, because S is the set of *all* possibilities, it must include these two:

1. p is in R (you got that chocolate)
2. p is not in R (you didn't get that chocolate)

Now, 1 and 2 are clearly contradictory. Thus, for any infinite set of random possibilities (any infinite box of chocolates), you cannot get both 1 and 2.

In other words, logically you cannot get every possibility, because some of them preclude others.

MD-1118 wrote:That's why I don't claim to exist.

Oh, you exist alright. If you don't think so, try cheating on your taxes.

Foil wrote:MD, as entertaining as your "essaying" has been, I have to take issue with this one:

MD-1118 wrote:A compelling thought: infinite possibilities dictate that at some point, not only will I experience the exact same thing as any given person at any given time or place (say for example, Spidey during lunch this afternoon), I will also be that person.

Your logic is flawed.

Say S is the set of infinite possibilities (your infinite box of chocolates, if you will), and every second for eternity you are randomly selected one of those possibilities.

Now, it does not follow that every possibility (every chocolate) will eventually be selected. For a given possibility p, there are actually infinitely many scenarios within an infinite subset of S where p is never selected. A little study of infinite sets should show you this.

------

And a simple counter-example:

Say S is the set of every possibility, R is any infinite subset of S (e.g. the infinite set of chocolates you get) and p is any given possibility within S. Now, because S is the set of *all* possibilities, it must include these two:

1. p is in R (you got that chocolate)
2. p is not in R (you didn't get that chocolate)

Now, 1 and 2 are clearly contradictory. Thus, for any infinite set of random possibilities (any infinite box of chocolates), you cannot get both 1 and 2.

In other words, logically you cannot get every possibility, because some of them preclude others.

... and logically, certain laws of physics shouldn't exist, certain situations and objects in nature shouldn't exist, because they apparently contradict other laws or situations or objects. They still "exist", however. At least, we perceive them as existent, to the extent that they are imperceptibly different from anything else solely because they cannot exist. Whatever we may perceive, we cannot and do not know the true nature of anything in existence. We just have our simple interpretations, our attempt to wrap our minds around the universe in its obscurity.

Wait a minute. You're saying your flawed logic is okay... because there are other contradictions out there, and knowledge is subjective?

Ha, haven't seen a dodge like that since Barry Sanders...

----------------------

MD-1118, if you don't mind me asking:

You've essayed about subjectivism of reality, how nothing is really known, and even existence is questionable. So... what do you believe in?

I wonder if all those peeps encouraging the guy on the internet to commit suicide were being good little existentialist?

Foil, good analogy about Barry Sanders. Too bad he didn't have a team worthy of his abilities.

woodchip wrote:Foil, good analogy about Barry Sanders. Too bad he didn't have a team worthy of his abilities.

Heh, not really a good analogy, I just have football on the the mind, and Barry is my all-time favorite player.

Foil wrote:Wait a minute. You're saying your flawed logic is okay... because there are other contradictions out there, and knowledge is subjective?

All I'm saying is that nothing is knowable for certain, and if nothing is known for certain then how can one prove anything? Facts require data, and if the data is flawed, unascertainable or unknowable, facts cannot be known.

Foil wrote:You've essayed about subjectivism of reality, how nothing is really known, and even existence is questionable. So... what do you believe in?

MD-1118 wrote:As I've stated countless times before, I don't believe in anything in particular

... and I mean that quite literally.

MD-1118 wrote:All I'm saying is that nothing is knowable for certain, and if nothing is known for certain then how can one prove anything? Facts require data, and if the data is flawed, unascertainable or unknowable, facts cannot be known.

Depends what you mean by facts. Foil showed that your own claim is inconsistent a priori. So he didn't appeal to any "matters of fact" in the Humean sense of the word. (If you are not already familiar with Hume, then you should be if you ever want to earn your Skeptics' Badge! )

Jeff250 wrote:

MD-1118 wrote:All I'm saying is that nothing is knowable for certain, and if nothing is known for certain then how can one prove anything? Facts require data, and if the data is flawed, unascertainable or unknowable, facts cannot be known.

Depends what you mean by facts. Foil showed that your own claim is inconsistent a priori. So he didn't appeal to any "matters of fact" in the Humean sense of the word. (If you are not already familiar with Hume, then you should be if you ever want to earn your Skeptics' Badge! )

In the words of Francisco D'Anconia... "Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think that you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong."

Now, I don't claim to know everything. As a matter of fact, I'd be more inclined to think that I know little to nothing. But I will say this: If a given infinite set contains any and all possibilities, then wouldn't it also include the possibility that it doesn't include every possibility? If it contains every possibility including the possibility that not all possibilities are included, then there appears to be a contradiction. There can't be one, though, which means that either we're looking at the problem the wrong way, or it is actually possible for something to simultaneously exist and not exist. I don't know which is the case. I just know that I can no longer take any given shred of data, whether externally or internally generated, and accept it for what it appears to be. I don't trust my senses. For that matter, I don't even trust my own logic. It is simply another possibility to consider.

I'm no great mathematician, and as such I don't have an extraordinary grasp on set theory, but from what I've managed to glean it seems that you are, in essence, describing Russell's paradox. But then, the Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory, with the axiom of choice, seems to rule this out. Please, if I'm misinterpreting any of this feel free to explain it further. I'm not concerned with being right, I just don't want to make unnecessary presumptions (and I learn each day just how many I'm actually making ^^; ). At any rate, math never was my strong point. Perhaps an allegory or metaphor?

Also Jeff, I'm none too sure that Foil "beat my claim a priori", or even what the supposed claim was. I try not to state anything as fact, although I have a few too-well ingrained notions such as infinite possibilities. Who knows? Maybe nothing is possible. Maybe nothing even exists, and Descartes was more right than he could have known when he said "I think, therefore I am". I don't know, and I guess in the end that's all anything ever comes down to, really... what one knows.

Besides, Foil's argument doesn't necessarily negate the statement in question... it simply states that it is partial and incomplete. I'm still not entirely sure I'm following, however. I won't excuse myself, I'll simply state that my mind is not currently operating at peak capacity, nor - despite the interest this topic holds for me - does said topic hold my attention in its entirety at the moment. Simply put, I'm horribly distracted at the moment. Maybe after a week's rest and some mental "spring cleaning" I'll be better able to wrap my thoughts around this.

After a few much-needed hours of sleep, I think I can better understand the problem. Foil, what you were actually describing was Cantor's diagonal argument for the existence of uncountable sets. While this does mean that in mathematics, applied or otherwise, certain subsets cannot logically exist within a larger set, it still leaves me hanging. Why can't they exist? If a given set a is infinite (\"normal\" infinite as opposed to \"absolute\" infinite), then yes, the given subset b cannot exist due to its nature... but if the given set a is, in fact, an absolute infinite set (the so-called \"infinite of infinites\", or \"Cantor's paradise\") then - I think - this allows for subset b to exist. The difference, I think, is that for \"normal\" infinites, they are not necessarily all-inclusive... whereas an absolute infinite is all-encompassing, and thus allows for unrealistic inclusions. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that an absolute infinite includes not only all possibilities, but all impossibilities as well. Am I making any sense? If I've made a mistake, please don't hesitate to explain it to me. As I've said, I am still new to set theory, and as I've only had a day or two to study it - an impromptu, improvisational study at that - I'm none too sure of my statements. Besides, Foil, you've apparently done more extensive, in-depth study in this area, and as such I do feel a certain compulsion to look to you for assistance in this matter. I'm not discarding the thought that all things can be included in a larger collective of things, I'm just attempting to work it out logically. If I can't, then I'll retract the theory. Here's to logic, scientific investigation, and human curiosity.