Knowledge

Tinker Grey · Dec 11, 2011

Call it an equivocation of existence. In one sense, only things exist -- things that make up the space-time continuum. In another sense, we could include abstract concepts such as love or imaginary things such as unicorns.

I think it muddies the waters to use these terms equivalently -- hence it is equivocation.

Love doesn't exist. Relations don't exist. The USA doesn't exist (except as a portion of landmass making up a larger one). Numbers don't exist. These are constructs of the brain. They are names we give to ideas.

So do ideas exist? Well, yeah. They are results of matter and energy in the brain. But if there is no one to think the thoughts, they don't exist.

So I would aver that such abstract concepts aren't proper things. A rock exists whether I know it or not. Love doesn't exist unless there is someone to think it.

As such introducing abstract things into a discussion of existence is useful only inasmuch as it serves to make the distinction I am trying to make here.

bricklayer · Dec 11, 2011

Archaeopteryx said:
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.

Matter is that with mass.
Space is position relative to matter.
Time is the progressive sequential increments of the matter-space continuum.
Energy is the interaction of matter in space over time.

Because no particle of matter can occupy the same position relative to the balance of matter in any two increments of time, I am left to believe that the matter-space-time continuum is subject to constant exhaustive change. Because anything subject to change is subject (not-sovereign, not-necessary, contingent), I am left to believe that the matter-space-time continuum exists contingently. Therefore, necessary existence must be metaphysical-spiritual-eternal.

Material, spacial or energetic necessity are contradicted by their subjectivity.

Tinker Grey · Dec 11, 2011

But what if necessity isn't necessary?

(Again, the word is "spatial".)

bricklayer · Dec 11, 2011

Tinker Grey said:
But what if necessity isn't necessary?

I will use the above as the best example of a self-defeating question I have read to date.

Tinker Grey · Dec 11, 2011

Well, let me elaborate.

You have demonstrated that there is reason why there can't be an infinite regression. Your starting point appears to be your own personal incredulity.

As it has been said, "Change is the only constant". I don't know if I agree with this, but perhaps change is the only necessity.

So, again, why--barring your own incredulity--should we accept your starting point? That is, as originally asked, what if necessity isn't necessary? Or again, why should we accept your premises?

bricklayer · Dec 11, 2011

Tinker Grey said:
Well, let me elaborate.

You have demonstrated that there is reason why there can't be an infinite regression. Your starting point appears to be your own personal incredulity.

As it has been said, "Change is the only constant". I don't know if I agree with this, but perhaps change is the only necessity.

So, again, why--barring your own incredulity--should we accept your starting point? That is, as originally asked, what if necessity isn't necessary? Or again, why should we accept your premises?

Why sequence questions beg a common context; we may not recognize a common context. That is why I have tried to express myself in terms I am left to believe are self-evident. Unfortunately, one cannot simplify beyond the self-evident. However, one can always ask why.

Archaeopteryx · Dec 11, 2011

bricklayer said:
Matter is that with mass.
Space is position relative to matter.
Time is the progressive sequential increments of the matter-space continuum.
Energy is the interaction of matter in space over time.

Because no particle of matter can occupy the same position relative to the balance of matter in any two increments of time, I am left to believe that the matter-space-time continuum is subject to constant exhaustive change. Because anything subject to change is subject (not-sovereign, not-necessary, contingent), I am left to believe that the matter-space-time continuum exists contingently. Therefore, necessary existence must be metaphysical-spiritual-eternal.

Material, spacial or energetic necessity are contradicted by their subjectivity.

But, if for something to exist it must consist in matter or some complex configuration thereof, then we have already excluded the metaphysical, spiritual and supernatural, since these things do not consist in matter (or any configuration thereof), and therefore cannot exist, neither necessarily nor contingently.

But even if, for the sake of argument, we grant that the space-time continuum exists contingently, that begs the question "Contingent on what?" You say "Something metaphysical or spiritual." But what? And how could we even gain knowledge of "it" if it exists beyond the space-time continuum that we exist in and consists in something other than matter? To paraphrase Nietzsche: we should not trust our lives to the spider webs of such a possibility.

bricklayer · Dec 12, 2011

Archaeopteryx said:
But, if for something to exist it must consist in matter or some complex configuration thereof, then we have already excluded the metaphysical, spiritual and supernatural, since these things do not consist in matter (or any configuration thereof), and therefore cannot exist, neither necessarily nor contingently.

But even if, for the sake of argument, we grant that the space-time continuum exists contingently, that begs the question "Contingent on what?" You say "Something metaphysical or spiritual." But what? And how could we even gain knowledge of "it" if it exists beyond the space-time continuum that we exist in and consists in something other than matter? To paraphrase Nietzsche: we should not trust our lives to the spider webs of such a possibility.

That which is contingent is also analogous to its necessary cause.
I am left to believe that the contingent matter-space-time continuum exists to be analogous to the immaterial, spiritual and eternal.

I find Nietzsche's opinions to be very easily dismissed.

Archaeopteryx · Dec 12, 2011

bricklayer said:
That which is contingent is also analogous to its necessary cause.
I am left to believe that the contingent matter-space-time continuum exists to be analogous to the immaterial, spiritual and eternal.

I find Nietzsche's opinions to be very easily dismissed.

The best you can say, from what you've argued thus far, is that space-time is contingent on something, but you don't know what. You believe it is something spiritual. But your argument speaks only to the necessity of that something, not its supposed spiritual-ness. It is not necessarily the case that for something to be "necessary" it must be immaterial, spiritual, supernatural, Etc. If we go back to what it takes for something to exist (i.e. it consisting in matter or some configuration thereof), then we can already exclude the supernatural.

Tinker Grey · Dec 12, 2011

bricklayer said:
Why sequence questions beg a common context; we may not recognize a common context. That is why I have tried to express myself in terms I am left to believe are self-evident. Unfortunately, one cannot simplify beyond the self-evident. However, one can always ask why.

If something isn't self-evident to everyone, is it self-evident at all?

bricklayer · Dec 12, 2011

Tinker Grey said:
If something isn't self-evident to everyone, is it self-evident at all?

I do not so empower the perpetually contentious and disingenuous, such as yourself.
Nor do I limit myself to the limits of others.
I am, however, as I was above, careful to make note that an idea is "to me" self-evident.
You can take it or leave it for all I care.
Not that I don't enjoy our banter, I do.

There are a good percentage of people that couldn't admit to falling in a whole for being at the bottom. There are people who deny their own existence. Fools exist, and your above question leads to a defining trait of a fool: the inability to perceive the self-evident.

The difference between a liar and a fool is that the liar knows he's lying,
but the fool believes the lie. He's been fooled. Others can fool us, but it is most common for one to make a fool of oneself.

It has been said that a "good liar" has to believe their lie. Unfortunately, no one can remember everything, and one must remember one's lies. Therefore, the longer one has to remember a lie, the more often one tells a lie, the more likely that one is to make a fool of them self.

As I said above, we can be fooled by others, but that's not the real danger to be concerned with. We are our own danger.
"A fool says in his own heart (intellect-emotion-will) that there is no God."

Tinker Grey · Dec 12, 2011

Wow. Just wow.

I'm perpetually contentious, disingenuous, a fool and possibly a good liar.

Well I'm sorry that you enjoy "our banter" because I will now deprive you of it.

bricklayer · Dec 12, 2011

GrowingSmaller said:
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?

I over looked this post earlier. It is an excellent example of existence without being. Mathematics is replete with existence without being.

bricklayer · Dec 12, 2011

Tinker Grey said:
Wow. Just wow.

I'm perpetually contentious, disingenuous, a fool and possibly a good liar.

Well I'm sorry that you enjoy "our banter" because I will now deprive you of it.

You proposed to allow the contentious and disingenuous to define the self-evident.
I stated a case why I don't do that.
Upon a reread, I can see how you could think that I was referring to you.
I seem to have struck a cord or a shoe size or something.
How was I to know that the shoe would fit so well you thought I made it for you?

Tinker Grey · Dec 12, 2011

Noticing that one has been insulted isn't the same thing as saying the shoe fits. You yourself said that you can see how it reads that way. (How else should I interpret "such as yourself"?)

bricklayer · Dec 12, 2011

Tinker Grey said:
Noticing that one has been insulted isn't the same thing as saying the shoe fits. You yourself said that you can see how it reads that way. (How else should I interpret "such as yourself"?)

Sloppy. It is best inferred your way. I was sloppy. Denise, my wife is not going to let this go either. Damn poor writing on my part.

When writing, I pretend that everyone is my Papa, and that he is pretending to be everyone else. He's trying to test me and ask all the right questions to move me along. You are one of my favorite of his characters. I sincerely like disagreeing with you. You test me. You make me restate and refine and redefine and on and on. I would sincerely miss our banter. Please forgive me.

Did I address you question as to the universal nature of the self-evident to your satisfaction?

Tinker Grey · Dec 12, 2011

Wow. In a good way.

I am sincerely honored by that apology.

To be explicit, I forgive you and am happy to do so.

I'll have to address "self-evident" later. Thanks.

juvenissun · Dec 13, 2011

bricklayer said:
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).

Please give one example to each type of knowledge. Thanks.

KCfromNC · Dec 13, 2011

Tinker Grey said:
Wow. Just wow.

I'm perpetually contentious, disingenuous, a fool and possibly a good liar.

And those are your good traits

Tinker Grey · Dec 13, 2011

Flatterer.

Knowledge

Wanderer

Well-Known Member

Wanderer

Well-Known Member

Wanderer

Well-Known Member

Wanderer

Well-Known Member

Wanderer

Wanderer

Well-Known Member

Wanderer

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Wanderer

Well-Known Member

Wanderer

... and God saw that it was good.

Regular Member

Wanderer

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency