The inevitability of everlasting experience

[Chriliman]

Are eternal experiencing beings possible?

I'm not sure, is it even possible to determine the possibility of that?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'm not sure, is it even possible to determine the possibility of that?

If you make it a premise, your argument will be valid and you can argue its soundness later

 

[Yttrium]

Basically, IOW, if we say reality is eternal and is capable of making experiencing beings, then it stand to reason it would make every kind of experience being possible, including those that last forever.

That depends on the nature of reality. If, for example, you have a universe that keeps expanding and collapsing like a yoyo, anything with experience would eventually be destroyed in each collapse.

 

[Kylie]

P1: Reality can’t logically come from literally nothing or become literally nothing.

The way reality is now, with the laws of nature we have now, I agree.

However, at the point of the Big Bang, reality was NOT the way it is now, and the laws of nature we have now didn't exist.

So there's no reason to believe that P1 holds for the Big Bang.

 

[zippy2006]

Basically, IOW, if we say reality is eternal and is capable of making experiencing beings, then it stands to reason it would make every kind of experiencing being possible, including those that last forever.

You are thinking of the argument which says that over an infinite duration anything which is possible will necessarily come about. I forget the technical terms, but you are basically referring to a being with a beginning but no end, no? And that is what you mean by everlasting?

P1: Reality can’t logically come from literally nothing or become literally nothing.

P2: Therefore, reality has always existed and will never cease to exist

P3: Reality is capable of making experiencing beings

C: Therefore, since reality is eternal, it must have already made an experiencing being that’s capable of lasting forever, and is probably an experiencing being itself.

The term "reality" is opaque and undefined. In P1 and P2 it seems to refer to the material universe, but in P3 it seems to refer to God or some sort of making/creating being.

Also, three premises and a conclusion does not an argument make. We have had this problem on the forum before. Arguments require inferential reasoning and a defense of premises (where applicable). Technically your "P2" is an inference from P1, so there is at least one bit of inferential reasoning. Here is an updated argument:

P1: Reality can’t logically come from literally nothing or become literally nothing.​

P2: Reality is capable of making an experiencing being that is capable of lasting forever​

P3: Over an infinite amount of time, anything which is possible will also be made actual​

4: Reality has always existed and will never cease to exist {from P1}​

C: Therefore, an experiencing being that’s capable of lasting forever will be made actual by Reality {from P2, P3, and 4}​

​

...and then at the very least you would have to define your term "Reality" and defend P2.

 

[durangodawood]

P1: Reality can’t logically come from literally nothing or become literally nothing.

How do we know this?

 

[SelfSim]

... and then at the very least you would have to define your term "Reality" and defend P2.

Hilarious!

Both 'arguments' are complete word-salad, relying on the principle of 'my definition of those words is more correct than yours'.

Where's the exit clause on this thread? Pistols at 50 paces at sunrise?

 

[childeye 2]

How do we know this?

Because objective fact/truth both known, and unknown, is the same as objective reality for intents and purposes.

 

[SelfSim]

Because objective fact/truth is the same as objective reality.

Says who? (.. is the point).

 

[durangodawood]

Because objective fact/truth both known, and unknown, is the same as objective reality for intents and purposes.

How do you know that your P1 claim is either objective fact or objective reality?

I cant think of how we'd know it except by intuition, which is quite fallible and not good enough for a logical proof imo.

 

[SelfSim]

Because objective fact/truth both known, and unknown,

'Unknown truth' is still known to be unknown .. but by what method does that come about, is the point.

 

[childeye 2]

Says who? (.. is the point).

Says who?... is not going to be a relevant topic for my purpose of understanding one another. This is a true dichotomy in all intents and in all languages around the world: Something/nothing. The intended sentiment is a positive/negative.

 

[childeye 2]

'Unknown truth' is still known to be unknown ..

Yes, but in any semantical construct of knowing or not knowing, we must know what know means. Knowledge/ignorance are a positive/ negative just like something/nothing.

but by what method does that come about, is the point.

I figure that if something is deemed by definition 'eternal', we can't ever fully comprehend it 'by definition'. It would be as futile in thought as following an eternal line trying to prove it didn't end. The only productive course of reasoning I see is why believe one way and not the other when dealing with the unknown. But logically the unknown still implies something yet knowable in some capacity.

 

[childeye 2]

How do you know that your P1 claim is either objective fact or objective reality?

For the record, I didn't make the P1 claim. I'm just saying there's a positive/negative correlation to the terms in their meaning.

If you're asking me how I know what an objective fact is or what objective reality is, in this context it's like asking me how I know the difference between something and nothing. It's no different than suggesting we can't know for sure what the words something/nothing mean or objective/subjective mean according to the sentiments intended by those who invented the terms.

I cant think of how we'd know it except by intuition, which is quite fallible and not good enough for a logical proof imo.

I think that we can only comprehend anything eternal with a positive. Or, in another line of reasoning, we can't even comprehend a negative without a positive. Something is more than nothing.

 

[durangodawood]

For the record, I didn't make the P1 claim.

Fair enough. Its just a claim that out there. But youre not making it.

If you're asking me how I know what an objective fact is or what objective reality is, in this context it's like asking me how I know the difference between something and nothing. It's no different than suggesting we can't know for sure what the words mean according to the sentiments intended.

I'm asking how how the person who does make this claim knows that reality cant logically come from nothing.

I think that we can only comprehend anything eternal with a positive. Or, in another line of reasoning, we can't even comprehend a negative without a positive. Something is more than nothing.

Yes, the limits of our comprehension lead us to favor certain absolute statements about reality. But I dont think the capacities of our limited and conditioned minds constrain reality itself.

 

[childeye 2]

I'm asking how how the person who does make this claim knows that reality cant logically come from nothing.

I see this thread as a semantical construct. So, I'm looking at the most basic sentiments of the terms in there positive and negative aspects. Reality represents something real. It therefore can't logically represent something unreal or not there. So, I'd guess the person making the claim could simply observe that you can't logically get blood from a turnip for example, or we can't extract a value of 1 from a zero value. And therefore, reality cannot logically proceed forth from nothing.

But I dont think the capacities of our limited and conditioned minds constrain reality itself.

I'm not sure what you mean by constraining reality itself. If you're saying facts about reality are learned and not imagined nor dictated by our minds, I'd definitely say that's an accurate assessment about a fact of reality as opposed to an opinion about reality. In that sense reality is objective and separate from the subjective mind. But if perchance you're saying our limited minds cannot alter or change reality, then semantically speaking that's difficult to evaluate since as an integer our minds are a part of reality, including our thoughts that are imagined. For example, if someone spreads misinformation (something untrue/unreal/imagined) and others believe it and act on it, then it will have real factual consequences in the reality we all share. As I see it, if we don't reason upon true dichotomies, then logic as well as communication will break down through subjective interpretations.

 

[SelfSim]

.. Reality represents something real.

What a load of gobbledygook!

Reality is what exists ..
There's no need for representations.

The rest of your argument is rendered moot because your premise was gobblydegook.

I'm not sure what you mean by constraining reality itself. If you're saying facts about reality are learned and not imagined nor dictated by our minds, I'd definitely say that's an accurate assessment about a fact of reality as opposed to an opinion about reality.

How's this for a factual assessment: Whenever you use the word 'reality', that word acquires the meaning assigned by either your mind, or someone else's. This is objectively demonstrable and produces abundant evidence.
(Otherwise, we wouldn't have a clue about what you're talking about ..)

In that sense reality is objective and separate from the subjective mind. But if perchance you're saying our limited minds cannot alter or change reality, then semantically speaking that's difficult to evaluate since as an integer our minds are a part of reality, including our thoughts that are imagined.

'as an integer our minds are a part of reality, including our thoughts that are imagined' ????
Errr .. what???

For example, if someone spreads misinformation (something untrue/unreal/imagined) and others believe it and act on it, then it will have real factual consequences in the reality we all share. If we don't reason upon true dichotomies, then logic as well as communication will break down through subjective interpretations.

You start out by claiming; 'reality is objective and separate from the subjective mind', then you demonstrate how someone, using their mind by spreading misinformation, can become reality?
Hilarious!

 

[durangodawood]

I see this thread as a semantical construct. So, I'm looking at the most basic sentiments of the terms in there positive and negative aspects. Reality represents something real. It therefore can't logically represent something unreal or not there. So, I'd guess the person making the claim could simply observe that you can't logically get blood from a turnip for example, or we can't extract a value of 1 from a zero value. And therefore, reality cannot logically proceed forth from nothing.

Sounds like an exploration of language first, with the hope that language maps well to the extreme edge cases of reality, like: "what does it mean for there to be nothing?"

But I'm not at all confident language is a tool built for that. We developed language for much more pedestrian tasks. I think language could just as well throw us off the trail in this extreme terrain.

 

[childeye 2]

What a load of gobbledygook!

Respectfully, people do not get to say what other people mean. I do not get to say what you mean. and you do not get to say what I mean. So, assuming it's our intention to understand one another, let's look at the context which I put forth so as to comprehend the intended simplicity of my statement:

"I see this thread as a semantical construct. So, I'm looking at the most basic sentiments of the terms in their positive and negative aspects".

The record shows I was concerned with parsing the semantics. With the underlined context above in mind, now look at what was said below in that context:

"Reality represents something real. It therefore can't logically represent something unreal or not there."

Above are the basic positive/negative aspects of the term "reality". In other words what is real/unreal. "Real" is the positive aspect and "unreal" is the negative aspect. What is real cannot logically be what is unreal. It's a basic simple understanding that most children should be able to comprehend.

Reality is what exists.

In its base meaning, of course the term reality would include what exists. But the term "exists' is a subtextual distinction not formed from the base sentiment that the term 'reality' represents, and my intention is to reason upon the base meaning in its positive and negative aspects without any deviation.

For example, some things in reality do not exist anymore, such as an extinct species of animal. But just because they no longer exist does not mean they are no longer real or are unrealized. Hence some negative aspects of the term "existence", such as "non-existence" does not equate with being unreal/fiction. It would be more accurate to state that to exist means to be brought forth into reality and non-existence would mean to be removed from existence in that same reality.

There's no need for representations.

I didn't invent the term reality, and you did not invent the term reality. But when it was invented, it was meant to carry a specific meaning/sentiment expressing what is real and not fiction. Hence the term was invented to represent a certain meaning. To say there's no need for representations, is to assert that there's no need for words to have true meanings.

The rest of your argument is rendered moot because your premise was gobblydegook.

My premise is sound; what is real is not unreal. What is a positive is not a negative.

How's this for a factual assessment: Whenever you use the word 'reality', that word acquires the meaning assigned by either your mind, or someone else's. This is objectively demonstrable and produces abundant evidence.
(Otherwise, we wouldn't have a clue about what you're talking about ..)

You're talking about what is called psycholinguistics, and the difference between objective and subjective views. Your expressed sentiment is serving the same point I wish to make also. However, I intend to qualify the true meanings using true dichotomies of positive/negative. Note that earlier you had said from your subjective view that "reality is what exists", and I have shown that the sentiment of existence does not accurately equate to reality, objectively speaking. However subjectively speaking, if I no longer exist then neither does reality exist from my subjective view of reality since my view no longer exists.

'as an integer our minds are a part of reality, including our thoughts that are imagined' ????
Errr .. what???

integer​

noun​

in·te·ger ˈin-ti-jər

1
: any of the natural numbers, the negatives of these numbers, or zero
2
: a complete entity

entity​

noun​

en·ti·ty ˈen-tə-tē
ˈe-nə-

pluralentities
1
a
: BEING, EXISTENCE
especially : independent, separate, or self-contained existence
b
: the existence of a thing as contrasted with its attributes
2
: something that has separate and distinct existence and objective or conceptual reality

You start out by claiming; 'reality is objective and separate from the subjective mind',

No, I was seeking clarification from the poster, who said "I dont think the capacities of our limited and conditioned minds constrain reality itself".
I conveyed a possible interpretation that a fact of reality is something learned as opposed to an opinion. Hence reality is objective and not subject to the mind in that sense.

then you demonstrate how someone, using their mind by spreading misinformation, can become reality?
Hilarious!

Again, I was seeking clarification. I conveyed a possible semantical problem where misinformed opinions followed by actions have real consequences in reality, depending upon what the poster might have meant. That's simply inferring through example that terminology does not always adequately depict one's intended sentiment because words can have more than one meaning.

 

[childeye 2]

Sounds like an exploration of language first, with the hope that language maps well to the extreme edge cases of reality, like: "what does it mean for there to be nothing?"

That's a well-articulated thought including the semantical problem in thought, of nothing is there, as if nothing could be somewhere. Yes, I first want to understand the sentiments of others, and I also want to be understood by others. That is true. And how we subjectively apply language can oftentimes be an obstacle to that end. To overcome such obstacles, linguistics can be used to navigate the discrepancies using the basic objective positive/negative aspects of terms to bring clarity to an unseen deviation from what is true.

But, while that's a suitable pretext, I'm actually alluding to inner individual thoughts and comprehension of what is reality, and here we are talking about psycholinguistics. Here too, if we do not have solid terms to think upon and build sound logic upon, then our reasoning will end in some form of a contradiction. That is why we need to reason upon true dichotomies.

But I'm not at all confident language is a tool built for that. We developed language for much more pedestrian tasks. I think language could just as well throw us off the trail in this extreme terrain.

As noted above, language is typically considered a tool for communication of sentiment between people, and it has its flaws. But psycholinguistics is about the internal words we use in thought (sentiment), and our thoughts/sentiments are not always trustworthy when formed out of ignorance. Therefore, we all think thoughts and ponder the mechanics of our own existence and our surroundings in which we exist from our subjective view. To reason objectively however, we must use true dichotomies of positive/negative to comprehend accurately what is and what is not in all aspects of reality. As I see it, if we don't reason upon true dichotomies, then logic as well as communication will break down through subjective interpretations.