Nine Questions Some Creationists Feel Are Real Stumpers

[TagliatelliMonster]

What is existence?
Here is the problem with existence. You are not saying anything about the thing. You haven't explained what existence is.
What is it that you have proved? So I want you to explain what existence is? You are just playing with words.

Existence (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
We will start here:
... Hume argued (in A Treatise of Human Nature 1.2.6) that there is no impression of existence distinct from the impression of an object, which is ultimately on Hume's view a bundle of qualities. As all of our contentful ideas derive from impressions, Hume concluded that existence is not a separate property of an object. ...

Regards
Mikkel

Edit:
What does the words "the thing exists" signify about the thing? What does "the thing exists" say about the thing?
"The dog is black" say something about the dog. "The thing exists" says what about the thing?

Take 3
That sentence is not a thing: "In the way *I* use the word, making an observation and detecting it *proves* the existence." Further it can't be observed itself as for its meaning, because it is about how you think and that is not observation, so it doesn't exist.

What a surprise.

Once again, we see you taking a word, ripping it out of the context in which it was used, misrepresenting how it was used and then, off course, once again fly off into an irrelevant tangent filled with yet another bottomless pit of intellectually-sounding philosophical word salad.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No.

Try again.

Start here.
https://www.fecundity.com/codex/forallx.pdf

Then explain for sound and valid these:
P1: A is B
P2: B is C
C: A is C

P1: A is B
P2: B is C
C: B is D

Then these:
P1: All humans are mortal
P2: Socrates is a human
C: Socrates is mortal

P1: All humans are mortal
P2: Socrates is a human
C: Socrates is a philosopher

P1: All humans are mammals
P2: Socrates is a human
C: Socrates is a fish

Regards
Mikkel

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What a surprise.

Once again, we see you taking a word, ripping it out of the context in which it was used, misrepresenting how it was used and then, off course, once again fly off into an irrelevant tangent filled with yet another bottomless pit of intellectually-sounding philosophical word salad.

Like your take on this:
Existence (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
We will start here:
... Hume argued (in A Treatise of Human Nature 1.2.6) that there is no impression of existence distinct from the impression of an object, which is ultimately on Hume's view a bundle of qualities. As all of our contentful ideas derive from impressions, Hume concluded that existence is not a separate property of an object. ...

Regards
Mikkel

PS There is more. Remember I am all of philosophy. This site is me and all philosophers mentioned are me.
I get your method. You make it personal if it suits you.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Like your take on this:
Existence (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
We will start here:
... Hume argued (in A Treatise of Human Nature 1.2.6) that there is no impression of existence distinct from the impression of an object, which is ultimately on Hume's view a bundle of qualities. As all of our contentful ideas derive from impressions, Hume concluded that existence is not a separate property of an object. ...

Regards
Mikkel

From the link:

Is existence a property of individuals? and Assuming that existence is a property of individuals, are there individuals that lack it?


I'ld say physical existence is a state of things. And that state is defined by wheter or not a thing has detectable manifestation. Those things that have detectable manifestation, are those things of which we say that they physically exist.

Those things that don't have detectable manifestation, either by definition or by repeated failure in detecting them, are those things we would refer to as not existing or unlikely to exist.

If one says of a thing that it physically exist and yet has no detectable manifestation whatsoever, then I don't know what that person means by the word "exist".

PS There is more. Remember I am all of philosophy.

And none about practicallity in both the observation of reality as well as in ease of communication.
Which is what makes it near impossible to have a normal conversation with you.

This site is me and all philosophers mentioned are me.

I get your method. You make it personal if it suits you.

No idea what you are talking about.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Start here.
https://www.fecundity.com/codex/forallx.pdf

Then explain for sound and valid these:
P1: A is B
P2: B is C
C: A is C

P1: A is B
P2: B is C
C: B is D

Then these:
P1: All humans are mortal
P2: Socrates is a human
C: Socrates is mortal

P1: All humans are mortal
P2: Socrates is a human
C: Socrates is a philosopher

P1: All humans are mammals
P2: Socrates is a human
C: Socrates is a fish

Regards
Mikkel

Or.... and you might find this a wacky idea.... you could, like... you know.... actually address the point I made.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
I'ld say physical existence is a state of things. And that state is defined by whether or not a thing has detectable manifestation. Those things that have detectable manifestation, are those things of which we say that they physically exist.

Those things that don't have detectable manifestation, either by definition or by repeated failure in detecting them, are those things we would refer to as not existing or unlikely to exist.

If one says of a thing that it physically exist and yet has no detectable manifestation whatsoever, then I don't know what that person means by the word "exist".
...

Everything is not just things.
Someone: Everything is physical existence.
Someone else: Everything is not physical existence.
Me: Both are to simple.

In practice you know "something" which is not a thing, yet you know it. Other things you know, are things.
The problem with existence as you use it, is this:
You: Those things that don't have detectable manifestation, either by definition or by repeated failure in detecting them, are those things we would refer to as not existing or unlikely to exist.
Me: No!
Now explain that "no" in just physical terms and as a thing and you can't. So the "no" doesn't exist!

Regards
Mikkel

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Or.... and you might find this a wacky idea.... you could, like... you know.... actually address the point I made.

Yes, I did. I pointed out that your conclusion didn't follow from the premises.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, I did. I pointed out that your conclusion didn't follow from the premises.

You did not. You commented on some abstract thing that wasn't even analogous to the point made.

Here is the actual point again:

p1: 2 apples + 2 apples demonstrably gives you 4 apples.
P2: person X claims and believes it adds up to 5 apples instead

C: person X is demonstrably wrong about that.

Please point out specifically how this specific conclusion supposedly doesn't follow from those specific premises.

The generic formulation of this would be that if a person believe something that is objectively incorrect, then that person is wrong about that specific thing.
It's what "being wrong" means.


It's both hilarious and sad that you feel this is a point that needs any arguing.
It's simply laughable and can't be taken seriously.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Everything is not just things.

In the context were are talking about here, we are talking about actual physical things. Not about mere concepts that exist merely by way of being able to conjure them up in your mind.

Someone: Everything is physical existence.

Nobody here has said this.

Someone else: Everything is not physical existence.
Me: Both are to simple.

Me: you're again flying of in an irrelevant tangent that will only once more derail the entire thing into meaningless and useless oblivion.

In practice you know "something" which is not a thing, yet you know it.

The topic now is existance, not knowledge.

Other things you know, are things.
The problem with existence as you use it, is this:
You: Those things that don't have detectable manifestation, either by definition or by repeated failure in detecting them, are those things we would refer to as not existing or unlikely to exist.
Me: No!
Now explain that "no" in just physical terms and as a thing and you can't. So the "no" doesn't exist!

This is just more nonsense building on the strawman of someone claiming "everything is physical existence", which nobody here has said nore implied.

Try sticking to what people actually say.
You'll find it makes communication a lot easier.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You did not. You commented on some abstract thing that wasn't even analogous to the point made.

Here is the actual point again:

p1: 2 apples + 2 apples demonstrably gives you 4 apples.
P2: person X claims and believes it adds up to 5 apples instead

C: person X is demonstrably wrong about that.

Please point out specifically how this specific conclusion supposedly doesn't follow from those specific premises.

The generic formulation of this would be that if a person believe something that is objectively incorrect, then that person is wrong about that specific thing.
It's what "being wrong" means.


It's both hilarious and sad that you feel this is a point that needs any arguing.
It's simply laughable and can't be taken seriously.

Because you are missing a premise.
The premise is this: "...that if a person believe something that is objectively incorrect, then that person is wrong about that specific thing."

Regards
Mikkel

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

In the context were are talking about here, we are talking about actual physical things. Not about mere concepts that exist merely by way of being able to conjure them up in your mind.



Nobody here has said this.



Me: you're again flying of in an irrelevant tangent that will only once more derail the entire thing into meaningless and useless oblivion.



The topic now is existance, not knowledge.



This is just more nonsense building on the strawman of someone claiming "everything is physical existence", which nobody here has said nore implied.

Try sticking to what people actually say.
You'll find it makes communication a lot easier.

So we agree, everything is not physical existence, only some things are physical existence. So what about the rest, which is not physical existence? Does that exist or doesn't it exist? If it exists, is it another existence than physical existence?

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Polymath257]

Because you are missing a premise.
The premise is this: "...that if a person believe something that is objectively incorrect, then that person is wrong about that specific thing."

Regards
Mikkel

That isn't a premise (an axiom). It is a definition.

 

[Polymath257]

So we agree, everything is not physical existence, only some things are physical existence. So what about the rest, which is not physical existence? Does that exist or doesn't it exist? If it exists, is it another existence than physical existence?

Regards
Mikkel

Let me give an example. The number 2. It is clearly NOT a physical thing, although it can be represented by physical things.

However, it is a *concept* and thereby a thought.

And thoughts are *physical* processes in the brains of some animals.

So, some physical processes are thoughts in the brains of people. Those physical processes are able to encode information about other physical processes. In particular, thoughts can encode information about other thoughts.

Now, when we discuss the number 2, we are usually not interested in the particular physical process that encodes it. Whether it is encoded in a intel CPU, or a ARM CPU, or a brain, the number has commonalities across all of the physical processes that encode it.

Even in math this sort of similarity of structure is vastly more important than the specific identity used to analyze the concept.

So, we are lead to the question of the existence of abstractions, as opposed to the specifics that represent the abstractions. Does the number 2 'exist' in a way that is different than its existence as a physical thought process in some brains?

And, truthfully, I think at that point it is simply a matter of terminology. Do we extend the concept of 'exists' to include abstractions? Or do we define another word to describe what is going on?

My view is that the abstraction does not exist except as it is represented by specifics. Those specifics are, ultimately, physical things or physical processes.

So, even concepts like the number 2 *are* ultimately physical. But they are examples of abstractions.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That isn't a premise (an axiom). It is a definition.

Yeah, but it still has to be included.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Let me give an example. The number 2. It is clearly NOT a physical thing, although it can be represented by physical things.

However, it is a *concept* and thereby a thought.

And thoughts are *physical* processes in the brains of some animals.

So, some physical processes are thoughts in the brains of people. Those physical processes are able to encode information about other physical processes. In particular, thoughts can encode information about other thoughts.

Now, when we discuss the number 2, we are usually not interested in the particular physical process that encodes it. Whether it is encoded in a intel CPU, or a ARM CPU, or a brain, the number has commonalities across all of the physical processes that encode it.

Even in math this sort of similarity of structure is vastly more important than the specific identity used to analyze the concept.

So, we are lead to the question of the existence of abstractions, as opposed to the specifics that represent the abstractions. Does the number 2 'exist' in a way that is different than its existence as a physical thought process in some brains?

And, truthfully, I think at that point it is simply a matter of terminology. Do we extend the concept of 'exists' to include abstractions? Or do we define another word to describe what is going on?

My view is that the abstraction does not exist except as it is represented by specifics. Those specifics are, ultimately, physical things or physical processes.

So, even concepts like the number 2 *are* ultimately physical. But they are examples of abstractions.

Yeah, and all of your text can be explained by specific psychics, so now you do that. Only use physics. Wait, you can't.

We have been here before. Meaning is caused by physics, but can't be reduced to physics. So everything can't be explained using physics including your explanation that it can, thought you claim, it can.
Could you please learn not to confuse science with the rest of the world?

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Polymath257]

Yeah, and all of your text can be explained by specific psychics, so now you do that. Only use physics. Wait, you can't.

Of course I can. It won't be very useful for conveying the message though. Too much will deal with things like voltages and P or N doping and the physics of microwaves.

Very little will deal with the *message* of the text.

And that is part of the point. The physics is there and determines things, but it isn't the message and tends to obscure the message: sort of like not seeing a forest because of all the trees.

We have been here before. Meaning is caused by physics, but can't be reduced to physics. So everything can't be explained using physics including your explanation that it can, thought you claim, it can.
Could you please learn not to confuse science with the rest of the world?

Everything supervenes on the physical. That is all I am claiming. Once you fix the physical situation (over time), all the rest follows.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

Everything supervenes on the physical. That is all I am claiming. Once you fix the physical situation (over time), all the rest follows.

No, because you can't turn the subjective into objective empirical observation. You will be able to describe in it physical terms, but not do it using science, because science as a methodology is objective and you can't actually do subjectivity objectively.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Polymath257]

No, because you can't turn the subjective into objective empirical observation. You will be able to describe in it physical terms, but not do it using science, because science as a methodology is objective and you can't actually do subjectivity objectively.

Yes, you can, with brain scans.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, you can, with brain scans.

No, you can't do subjective behavior as objective behavior. You can look at subjective behavior objectively as you state, but you can't do subjective behavior as objective behavior.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Polymath257]

No, you can't do subjective behavior as objective behavior. You can look at subjective behavior objectively as you state, but you can't do subjective behavior as objective behavior.
l

If I can tell what your subjective state is by looking at a scan of your brain, then, yes, I *can* have an objective description of your subjective experiences. And that is all that is required.

While we cannot do that in a lot of detail *yet*, we can do it for some types of thoughts already. The limit is our resolution for the brain scans, both spatially and in time.