Knowledge

[bricklayer]

There are two kinds of knowledge: necessary knowledge and contingent knowledge.
Necessary knowledge is simple actuality with no potential to change.
Contingent knowledge is a complex of actuality and potentiality.
Contingent knowledge has the potential to change.

To know a thing necessarily is to know a thing exhaustively apart from it existence.
To know a thing objectively is to know a thing as it is.
To know a thing contingently is to know a thing as it is meant to be known.

The knowledge of a contingent being ranges from the non-existent to the objective.
The unchanging knowledge of a necessary being ranges from the objective knowledge of the infinite (self) to the necessary knowledge of the contingent (everything else).

 

[Wiccan_Child]

There are two kinds of knowledge: necessary knowledge and contingent knowledge.
Necessary knowledge is simple actuality with no potential to change.
Contingent knowledge is a complex of actuality and potentiality.
Contingent knowledge has the potential to change.

To know a thing necessarily is to know a thing exhaustively apart from it existence.
To know a thing objectively is to know a thing as it is.
To know a thing contingently is to know a thing as it is meant to be known.

The knowledge of a contingent being ranges from the non-existent to the objective.
The unchanging knowledge of a necessary being ranges from the objective knowledge of the infinite (self) to the necessary knowledge of the contingent (everything else).

Assuming, of course, that every necessary being in existence (of which there may be zero) has any unchanging necessary knowledge - a necessary being could exist, but it could simply be an inert brick. That brick has the properties of causing all contingent beings to exist, but it itself has knowledge of nothing, necessary or contingent.

If this is supposed to tie in to your other thread, you have a long way to go - otherwise, you're just equivocating.

 

[bricklayer]

Assuming, of course, that every necessary being in existence (of which there may be zero) has any unchanging necessary knowledge - a necessary being could exist, but it could simply be an inert brick. That brick has the properties of causing all contingent beings to exist, but it itself has knowledge of nothing, necessary or contingent.

Because no effect can transcend its cause, a "necessary" inert rock cannot "cause" intellect, emotion or will.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Because no effect can transcend its cause, a "necessary" inert rock cannot "cause" intellect, emotion or will.

Non sequitur. First, assuming strict causality for the moment, why can't a necessary inert rock cause intellect, emotion, and will? Inert objects cause other things all the time.

Second, why is this inability related to causality? What part of casuality do you think is being violated? The necessary inert brick is all that exists. Then, the brick causes other, contingent things to exist - including beings with will and emotion. The brick does this through purely mechanical means, but it does it nonetheless. Where, in that, is causality violated?

Third, you need to be more specific with your language. When you say, "no effect can transcend its cause", that is ambiguous. Do you mean, "no event can exist without a cause"? Or, "no event can precede its cause"? Or, "no event can metaphysically be above or beyond its cause"? These are three very separate issues, which I can't address until you clarify.

 

[bricklayer]

Non sequitur. First, assuming strict causality for the moment, why can't a necessary inert rock cause intellect, emotion, and will? Inert objects cause other things all the time.

Second, why is this inability related to causality? What part of casuality do you think is being violated? The necessary inert brick is all that exists. Then, the brick causes other, contingent things to exist - including beings with will and emotion. The brick does this through purely mechanical means, but it does it nonetheless. Where, in that, is causality violated?

Third, you need to be more specific with your language. When you say, "no effect can transcend its cause", that is ambiguous. Do you mean, "no event can exist without a cause"? Or, "no event can precede its cause"? Or, "no event can metaphysically be above or beyond its cause"? These are three very separate issues, which I can't address until you clarify.

I affirm the first-principle of contingency.
I hold it to be self-evident that no effect can transcend its cause.
We do not recognize a common context.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I affirm the first-principle of contingency. I hold it to be self-evident that no effect can transcend its cause.
We do not recognize a common context.

Because you did not clarify what you meant by "no effect can transcend its cause". I gave three different ways that sentence could be interpreted - temporal, causal, metaphysical - yet you just repeated the same, unknown phrase. Perhaps English isn't your first language.

In any case, I repeat my request: clarify what you mean by "no effect can transcend its cause". There are three different things that sentence could mean ("no effect can precede its cause", "no effect can be without cause", "no effect can be metaphysically distinct from its cause"), and I cannot tell which one, if any, you mean. So, I request a clarification.

 

[bricklayer]

Because you did not clarify what you meant by "no effect can transcend its cause". I gave three different ways that sentence could be interpreted - temporal, causal, metaphysical - yet you just repeated the same, unknown phrase. Perhaps English isn't your first language.

In any case, I repeat my request: clarify what you mean by "no effect can transcend its cause". There are three different things that sentence could mean ("no effect can precede its cause", "no effect can be without cause", "no effect can be metaphysically distinct from its cause"), and I cannot tell which one, if any, you mean. So, I request a clarification.

The very best example is existence. Non-existence cannot produce existence. An effect exists, by definition, contingently. An effect is a complex of actuality and potentiality. The existence of an effect begs the existence of a cause. The existence of a cause-effect sequence begs the existence of an efficient cause. The first-principle of contingency (no effect can transcend its cause) follows from non-existence's inability to produce existence, much less cause its being.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The very best example is existence. Non-existence cannot produce existence. An effect exists, by definition, contingently. An effect is a complex of actuality and potentiality. The existence of an effect begs the existence of a cause. The existence of a cause-effect sequence begs the existence of an efficient cause. The first-principle of contingency (no effect can transcend its cause) follows from non-existence's inability to produce existence, much less cause its being.

But, at some point, the sequence must end? At something "uncaused"? Or can it extend into infinity? Since this seems to relate somewhat to cosmological arguments for the existence of God, perhaps it is most pertinent if you would define what you mean by "existence"?

 

[bricklayer]

But, at some point, the sequence must end? At something "uncaused"? Or can it extend into infinity? Since this seems to relate somewhat to cosmological arguments for the existence of God, perhaps it is most pertinent if you would define what you mean by "existence"?

There are two types of existence: necessary existence and contingent existence.
Necessary existence is simple actuality; it has no potential to change or not exist. Necessary existence is as it is.
Contingent existence is a complex of actuality and potentiality; it is subject to constant change including the potential to not exist. Contingent existence is as intended to be.
Contingent existence cannot, by definition, exist necessarily.
The existence of the contingent is contingent upon the necessary.
Contingent (changing) existence begs the existence of the necessary.

No cause-effect sequence can be infinitely regressive; if it were the present increment could not occur because another increment will always be added to the beginning.

The existence of a cause-effect sequence begs the existence of an efficient cause.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

But what does existence consist in? Or, put differently, what does it take for some thing to exist? What must it consist in?

 

[bricklayer]

But what does existence consist in? Or, put differently, what does it take for some thing to exist? What must it consist in?

Contingent existence exists "in" a context as explained. It is inferred.
Necessary existence is self explanatory. It is implied.
Rephrased, necessary existence is that which exists necessarily, that which exists without cause, that which has no potential to not exist, that which has no potential to change, that which is simple actuality, etc.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Contingent existence exists "in" a context as explained. It is inferred.
Necessary existence is self explanatory. It is implied.
Rephrased, necessary existence is that which exists necessarily, that which exists without cause, that which has no potential to not exist, that which has no potential to change, that which is simple actuality, etc.

And what does this simple actuality consist in? It must after all consist in something if it is to exist.

 

[bricklayer]

And what does this simple actuality consist in? It must after all consist in something if it is to exist.

You are asking for a description of something that has no being.
You have cause and effect exactly back wards.
Simple actuality necessarily defines context; there is no context that transcends it.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You are asking for a description of something that has no being.
You have cause and effect exactly back wards.
Simple actuality necessarily defines context; there is no context that transcends it.

No, what I'm asking is what it takes for something to exist.

 

[bricklayer]

No, what I'm asking is what it takes for something to exist.

Contingent existence requires necessary existence to exist.
Necessary existence, by definition, exists necessarily; it has no prerequisite, no cause, no transcending context.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Contingent existence requires necessary existence to exist.
Necessary existence, by definition, exists necessarily; it has no prerequisite, no cause, no transcending context.

I don't think you understand my question. So let me explain. For something to exist it must consist in matter or energy. That's what it takes for something to exist, necessarily or otherwise. So if there is something that must exist necessarily, as you say, then it too must consist in matter or energy.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

For something to exist it must consist in matter or energy.

What about relations e.g. The house is bigger than the flower. Does the relation exist, and if so is it composed of matter or energy?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

What about relations e.g. The house is bigger than the flower. Does the relation exist, and if so is it composed of matter or energy?

Relations can exist, but only so far as they are relations of matter or energy.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

What about relations e.g. The house is bigger than the flower. Does the relation exist, and if so is it composed of matter or energy?

Relations can exist, but only so far as they are relations of matter or energy.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Relations can exist, but only so far as they are relations of matter or energy.

But is the relation itself material or energetic? I ask this because relations (alongside numbers, classes) are potential candidates for abstract objects ("abstracta").

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_object (ETA hmmmm link is so good for present purposes because the wiki seems to have changed/ been edited)