Can there be such a thing as nothing?

[QED]

If we try to clear our minds and use them to conceive of nothingness it almost hurts. It's as if it's an impossible feat for the imagination. Logic and language fully support this notion. How can there be such a thing as nothing? Is this logical contradiction just a play on words or could it be the reason why everything exists?

[Curious]

It wasn't presented to me in this kind of format, so honestly, it's really hard for me to judge the merits of your conclusion without knowing your premises and remaining argument.

And yet you judge it well enough to discount it.

I guess I'm not following you what your objection is. The collective theorems of L are a structure. For example, mathematics is a collective structure. God decides what if a theorem is true, and this decision is what puts a new structure in L.

You keep making this assumption without validating your argument with either example or reason.

Again you use an example that requires structure. Pi is the ratio between the circumference of a circle and it's diameter. Without the structure of a circle, or the separation of numbers, Pi is meaningless and to believe that pi is somehow precedent to either circle or numbers requires more reasoning than you have given.

In my platonic view, a circle is a geometric shape contained in the structure L.

But the circle requires a distinction between circumference and diameter for pi to have any meaning. If there is no geometry how can this shape be contained in anything?

Wouldn't this kernel theory contradict the description of the mind in the above quote?

I don't see how.

Either the mind is a single, indivisible "entity" or it is made up of parts. Both ideas seem to contradict the other.

There is no need to transmit such information since the kernel of God's mind that is responsible for us is immediately accessible due to the nature of truth being instantaneous.

There is no temporal sequence, there is a logical sequence. The "acted upon" is instantaneous depending on the results.

A little reasoning would be helpful here Harvey.

[harvey1]

And yet you judge it well enough to discount it.

I understand the basic concept, however to really give you a full breakdown of why such a concept is overloaded I need to get the full architecture of your argument. This is the same case with many concepts. We can judge it based on the general concept, but a detailed response requires the concept to be spelled out in argument form.

I guess I'm not following you what your objection is. The collective theorems of L are a structure. For example, mathematics is a collective structure. God decides what if a theorem is true, and this decision is what puts a new structure in L.

You keep making this assumption without validating your argument with either example or reason.

What exactly are you looking for? Give me an example or something.

But the circle requires a distinction between circumference and diameter for pi to have any meaning. If there is no geometry how can this shape be contained in anything?

And these distinctions exist. The platonic world, I believe, contains all the information about those relations. As for a geometry space, it might also contain such a space if it were needed. I'm not convinced such a space is needed since it may be possible to prove a theorem of geometry without instantiating that geometrical figure into some geometry space. I am agnostic about whether such geometries have representation in a geometry space. I go along with the view that the platonic world is a modal structure.

Either the mind is a single, indivisible "entity" or it is made up of parts. Both ideas seem to contradict the other.

Again, I don't see why a mind cannot be the fabric of reality itself that decides if something is consistent or not with the facts that are known in this modal structure, L. What conceptually do you see as the problem?

There is no temporal sequence, there is a logical sequence. The "acted upon" is instantaneous depending on the results.

A little reasoning would be helpful here Harvey.

If there are truths that exist, they are not true so many seconds after the truths they are based on are recognized they are true, that would be preposterous. For example, 2+2=4 is not true after 1+1=2 is known, that would be ridiculous. Both statements are true, but in order to prove that 2+2=4, one way to show it is first by showing that 1+1=2. In that instance, 1+1=2 is logically prior to 2+2=4. There's no temporal timeframe.

I think it is helpful to remember that time is a temporal dimension that itself may be constructed from 2-dimensional strings (for example). In other words, it is quite possible (likely?) that time is composed of an arrangement of mathematical-like entities (e.g., strings) that make our temporal dimension what it is. I don't think time occurs in the platonic reality. The passage of time is just an illusion as far as I'm concerned.

[ST88]

The L universe is the one caused by L, to use your expression. A U universe would be caused by U.

What's the difference between L and U, and L universe and U universe?

These are just examples. A KK47 universe would be caused by KK47.

If the first cause is L, then the L universe is going to express L as true, is that what you're saying?

Sort of. L universe is the demonstrative proof of L. L is the theorem, L universe is the proof of that theorem.

That's a bizarre way of putting it. It's not a proof until we say it is. Independently, it's an effect. Calling it a proof, however, requires an interpretive overlay of what a proof is. This is something that doesn't exist until we put it there.

I view it more like this kind of process:

1. The World is causal
2. Causality requires axioms
   ...

All of the above is instantaneous. There is a logical priority on what occurs in terms of priority, but there is no time. Time is just another structure like x, y, z dimensions. Our (3+1) universe is a geometry given its own geometrical representation.

Causality does not require axioms. Axioms describe causality. Otherwise, you would have to say that a causality is an axiom. And even then, the axiom is still independent of the language that describes it.

In my universe, mystery is not a problem. Asking "why" begs the question of a reason that contains a value judgment. A better question is "how", since "why" is irrelevant. We are here. It is a much better question to ask "how" we got here. The "Why" question contains too much emotional baggage to be of scientific value.

Well, is that because if you ask why the answer comes back to contradict reason? If so, then maybe you should ask why since perhaps the ideology is wrong. My experience is that those who don't find a satisfactory answer to why are usually proposing wrong views.

I don't discount the importance of asking "why", I only say it is not a scientific question. The scientific question is "how". I do not concern myself with whether or not asking "why" leads to a "satisfactory" answer because the question is not satisfactory. If you are looking for a reason -- a "because" -- then you will find a reason, however irrational it may be.

For example: Why do leopards have spots? The question itself implies a value judgment about having spots. You must first discover a system through which the leopard is able to be spotted -- a "how" question. In other words, the "how" is a more important and valid question than the "why".

I don't subscribe to the "lucky" hypothesis. My universe is strictly determinate -- though purely in an astrophysics sense. This particular universe has us to view it because that's how it happened.

Okay, it's a brute fact world that has tremendous complexity that overpowers reason. But, that strikes me as an ideology based on faith. If someone such as myself were to question your ideology, the best answer you can give me is that I should take it on faith that this is how things happened. But, as Spetey pointed out, a belief based on faith could be a dangerous view.

I'm sure it does strike you as a belief system based on faith. But I really couldn't care less if the universe is determinist or not. It seems like the best way of looking at it given the data I can understand. Faith is irrelevant.

If you should ask me the question why you should believe what I do, I don't have an answer for you. I honestly can't see why the God hypothesis fits the data better. But you must have a reason for believing in what you do, so I have to take it on faith that you know something that I don't. (A lot of things, in fact, judging by the erudition with which you present your ideas.)

And I wouldn't necessarily say that a "brute force" universe would overpower reason, exactly. I would say that it overpowers our capacity to measure it at any given instant.

The "why's" behind these restrictive relationships are due to the consistency that nature follows. This consistency, I believe, favors a semantic consistency interpretation since a material consistency interpretation has deep problems with it. For example, quantum teleportation would favor a semantic interpretation since the universe is responding to the consistency of the laws themselves versus a local field interaction.

This doesn't make sense to me. How would responding to the consistency of laws favor a semantic interpretation? The laws themselves are not semantic, and there is no perceivable difference between an action based on a law and an effect.

The restrictive relations exist, and those restrictive relations hold even for systems that are not locally connected (e.g., quantum teleportation). It is therefore the relations themselves which are the explanation of the phenomena and not the effect just happening. If it were an effect just happening, then we would not expect to see the restrictive relations hold where two effects are observed (e.g., Bob and Alice conducting experiments a light year apart). There would be no relationship between Bob's particle and Alice's particle since they are not in local contact. You cannot strike it up to just behavior being what it is since we know why those two particles are in causal connection, these are the laws of quantum mechanics being enforced in the universe. If it were not that way, then our predictiveness of these kind of experiments would not be explainable.

For those of you who may be following this and have no idea who Bob and Alice are, here is an explanation. This seems to me to be highly suspect as a mode of "faster than light" communication. I can see the quantum computing & encryption applications, but come on. The communication of the state is not necessary in order for this effect to exist. Consider the mere fact of becoming "entangled". The particles must first become entangled in order for this transfer of states to work. Now, assuming that you could look at both particles at exactly the same time in exactly the same way, what is the probability that you will receive correlative information from both of them? I'd say it's pretty darn high. Look at this in another way. You have two identical baseballs -- same stitches, same juiced up rubber & cork core, same label. Assume that they can spin for a very long time, then synchronize their spins. Put each one in its own hermetically sealed mayonnaise jar (still spinning in an ideal vacuum), on one Funk's porch and one on Wagnall's porch, 3000 miles away. At exactly the same instant, stop each ball from spinning using the same method (disc brakes, shatter the jar, whatever). They will have stopped, showing exactly the same part of the sphere facing the same way. Not because they communicated, but because the mechanical aspect of the original spin forced them to be in the identical spot in their rotation at any given moment.

From what I can tell about entanglement, there is no reason to suspect that particle A for any reason "causes" what happens to particle B at the moment of detection. For the moment, barring any further experiments to the contrary, this appears to be a very neat parlor trick that happens to have some practical applications despite the relatively unknown nature of what is actually going on, like aspirin.

[harvey1]

That's a bizarre way of putting it. It's not a proof until we say it is. Independently, it's an effect. Calling it a proof, however, requires an interpretive overlay of what a proof is. This is something that doesn't exist until we put it there.

I think proofs do exist. In fact, instantiating structures to get a proof is a clear motivation for a God to make a world. If proofs did not exist, then I don't see how the logico-mathematical structures can exist. That is, a structure would only exist if it were true, but truth is tied to its proof, so if the proof didn't exist then there is no tie-in between the structure and its veracity, so why would it exist?

I view it more like this kind of process... Causality requires axioms

Causality does not require axioms. Axioms describe causality. Otherwise, you would have to say that a causality is an axiom. And even then, the axiom is still independent of the language that describes it.

Axioms describe causality is the same thing as saying that causality requires axioms. Perhaps you misunderstood what I was saying. For example, if I said that a human being require human bodies to live, it would be the same thing as saying that human bodies describe what being a human being is. All that means is that causality is a real feature, and as a real feature logic requires that it be describable with statements that what I would call axioms.

I don't discount the importance of asking "why", I only say it is not a scientific question. The scientific question is "how". I do not concern myself with whether or not asking "why" leads to a "satisfactory" answer because the question is not satisfactory. If you are looking for a reason -- a "because" -- then you will find a reason, however irrational it may be.

I think "why" is a very important scientific question.

For example: Why do leopards have spots? The question itself implies a value judgment about having spots. You must first discover a system through which the leopard is able to be spotted -- a "how" question. In other words, the "how" is a more important and valid question than the "why".

Why do leopards have spots is a scientific question.

If you should ask me the question why you should believe what I do, I don't have an answer for you. I honestly can't see why the God hypothesis fits the data better.

That might be because you don't ask why is the universe as structured as it is. If you don't ask that question, then there's little reason to believe in God since God is the only satisfactory answer to the big why questions.

This doesn't make sense to me. How would responding to the consistency of laws favor a semantic interpretation? The laws themselves are not semantic, and there is no perceivable difference between an action based on a law and an effect.

The laws are semantic based since they are constructed from the language of mathematics. However, they are not just semantic concepts since they dictate how reality works (e.g., why the Universe cannot exist without there being spacetime(s)). The semantic relationships, as I mentioned, stem from the nature of Universe being a causal world, and this explains why there are axioms which bring forth the kind of Universe which has the logico-mathematical structure that it happens to have. The link between semantic and reality come into play because the semantic aspect is what defines the causal world by limiting what is possible from what is actual. For example, the world cannot just be nothing since this violates the semantic description that exists. This semantic description, L, limits the world of possibility by parsing out the inconsistent realities. Therefore, L is a modal structure. Our minds have access to L (e.g., through mathematics) by deducing the basic axioms of causality that to us seem to be impossible to do without (e.g., a=a), and thereby we can learn a little bit about L. Our minds have intuitive access to L due to the eons of evolution where our evolving brains learned how L works (the "ins" and "outs" of L).

Now, assuming that you could look at both particles at exactly the same time in exactly the same way, what is the probability that you will receive correlative information from both of them? I'd say it's pretty darn high. Look at this in another way. You have two identical baseballs -- same stitches, same juiced up rubber & cork core, same label. Assume that they can spin for a very long time, then synchronize their spins. Put each one in its own hermetically sealed mayonnaise jar (still spinning in an ideal vacuum), on one Funk's porch and one on Wagnall's porch, 3000 miles away. At exactly the same instant, stop each ball from spinning using the same method (disc brakes, shatter the jar, whatever). They will have stopped, showing exactly the same part of the sphere facing the same way. Not because they communicated, but because the mechanical aspect of the original spin forced them to be in the identical spot in their rotation at any given moment. From what I can tell about entanglement, there is no reason to suspect that particle A for any reason "causes" what happens to particle B at the moment of detection. For the moment, barring any further experiments to the contrary, this appears to be a very neat parlor trick that happens to have some practical applications despite the relatively unknown nature of what is actually going on, like aspirin.

Nice try, but not quite good enough. The properties of A (Alice's particle) can be teleported to Bob at a distant location without communicating the properties of A to Bob. All that must be communicated is the result of her Bell measurement. See this article.

Now, imagine Alice's atom being in some complicated (excited) quantum state. Assume that we do not know this quantum state — and of course, we cannot find out by inspection (measurement). But what we can do is to teleport the quantum state to Bob's rubidium atom. After this operation, Bob's atom is exactly in the state that Alice's atom was before. Now note that Bob's atom afterwards is indistinguishable from the Alice's atom before. In a way, the two are the same — because it does not make sense to claim that two atoms are different only because they are at different locations. If Alice had gone to Bob and given him the atom we would have exactly the same physical situation. But Alice and Bob were not required to meet... If a state being teleported is itself entangled with another state, the entanglement is teleported with it. To illustrate: If Alice has a particle which is entangled with a particle owned by Zeke, and she teleports it to Bob, then afterwards, Bob's particle is entangled with Zeke's. A more symmetric way to describe the situation is the following: Alice has one particle, Bob two, and Charlie one. Alice's particle and Bob's first particle are entangled, and so are Bob's second and Charlie's particle:
Now, Bob performs a Bell measurement on his two particles, which projects them into a Bell state, i.e. they are now entangled. But, more spectacularly, Alice's and Charlie's particles are now entangled as well, although the two never met:

[QED]

Either the mind is a single, indivisible "entity" or it is made up of parts. Both ideas seem to contradict the other.

Again, I don't see why a mind cannot be the fabric of reality itself that decides if something is consistent or not with the facts that are known in this modal structure, L. What conceptually do you see as the problem?

If you're asking me to believe that all decisions are made by a conscious deity then I cannot oblige. You introduced the idea of god sitting in judgment on all phase transitions in the arguments for Atheism thread. There you also took the concept further giving god input on apparently random events like asteroid strikes in order to manipulate evolution towards mankind. Presumably then, there is no event too small or mundane to concern this extraordinarily busy god.

I have difficulties with this concept because it immediately paints god as a machine like a computer that never tires of performing countless mind-numbing operations without ever making a mistake. Such an infinitely patient machine would not exhibit anger, frustration or impatience as Christians claim god does. But everything certainly points towards a tireless algorithm at work. So why are you so intent on shoe-horning these particularly human attributes into the framework?

Some people look at life and declare that it must all have been deliberately designed because it seems to be incredibly complex. Others look past the complexity and find a simple algorithm that explains why such complexity can be created without external guidance. But you are presenting a third-way whereby you accept the mechanisms revealed by scientific investigation, but define god as permeating the fabric of the universe so that you can put him in charge of each and every operation. This allows you to rationalize whatever outcomes we see as being a product of his will. I don't find this at all engaging because it strikes me that whatever plan you care to imagine god having, you can cast around for evidence in the natural world to support the notion.

Now it is true that we could never tell this apart from the version which operates without a will, and therefore you might suggest that everyone should at least be Agnostic about god, except for the fact that this unexpected will places a considerable additional burden on the algorithm hence the justification for the Atheists interpretation.

[Curious]

And yet you judge it well enough to discount it.

I understand the basic concept, however to really give you a full breakdown of why such a concept is overloaded I need to get the full architecture of your argument. This is the same case with many concepts. We can judge it based on the general concept, but a detailed response requires the concept to be spelled out in argument form.

It was spelled out in detail previously and you were given ample opportunity to disagree with any points. The fact is that the argument was brought as an alternative to your "only reasonable" argument for creation. Since you were unable to show that this argument was unreasonable then it seems strange that you should discount this explanation or pretend that you have not had sufficient information to form a judgement which you obviously have.

What exactly are you looking for? Give me an example or something.

Ok. you say that this or that is due to God doing this or that. That is not a proper argument.

But the circle requires a distinction between circumference and diameter for pi to have any meaning. If there is no geometry how can this shape be contained in anything?

And these distinctions exist. The platonic world, I believe, contains all the information about those relations. As for a geometry space, it might also contain such a space if it were needed. I'm not convinced such a space is needed since it may be possible to prove a theorem of geometry without instantiating that geometrical figure into some geometry space. I am agnostic about whether such geometries have representation in a geometry space. I go along with the view that the platonic world is a modal structure.

So are you contending that it is not reality that dictates what is real but what you believe to be the case that dictates it?

Either the mind is a single, indivisible "entity" or it is made up of parts. Both ideas seem to contradict the other.

Again, I don't see why a mind cannot be the fabric of reality itself that decides if something is consistent or not with the facts that are known in this modal structure, L. What conceptually do you see as the problem?

I see the problem as the definition of mind as indivisible when presented with problem x and the definition as a "kernel" when presented with problem y.

If there are truths that exist, they are not true so many seconds after the truths they are based on are recognized they are true, that would be preposterous. For example, 2+2=4 is not true after 1+1=2 is known, that would be ridiculous. Both statements are true, but in order to prove that 2+2=4, one way to show it is first by showing that 1+1=2. In that instance, 1+1=2 is logically prior to 2+2=4. There's no temporal timeframe.

But the idea of truth as an argument supporting that of the precedence of language was introduced by you alone. My argument is that language is not needed. I think your answer supports this.

I think it is helpful to remember that time is a temporal dimension that itself may be constructed from 2-dimensional strings (for example). In other words, it is quite possible (likely?) that time is composed of an arrangement of mathematical-like entities (e.g., strings) that make our temporal dimension what it is. I don't think time occurs in the platonic reality. The passage of time is just an illusion as far as I'm concerned.

I really don't think that this is relevant as strings would be regarded as entities which contravene the state of nothingness.As for time being illusory, that may well be an incredibly apposite perception, but not one for this thread.

[harvey1]

If you're asking me to believe that all decisions are made by a conscious deity then I cannot oblige. You introduced the idea of god sitting in judgment on all phase transitions in the arguments for Atheism thread. There you also took the concept further giving god input on apparently random events like asteroid strikes in order to manipulate evolution towards mankind. Presumably then, there is no event too small or mundane to concern this extraordinarily busy god.

Do you base your beliefs on what you want to believe or based on what reasoning leads you to believe? I said earlier, if a logico-mathematical world exists, then truth exists. If truth exists, then in order for that to be so, theorems must meet some kind of satisfication criteria in order to be true. Satisfaction is known by proofs, and proofs require a conscious mind to understand and recognize the proofs. If there is no conscious mind, you have no proofs. Now, based on that reasoning, tell me why you reject it.

I have difficulties with this concept because it immediately paints god as a machine like a computer that never tires of performing countless mind-numbing operations without ever making a mistake. Such an infinitely patient machine would not exhibit anger, frustration or impatience as Christians claim god does. But everything certainly points towards a tireless algorithm at work. So why are you so intent on shoe-horning these particularly human attributes into the framework?

A great deal of God's mind is just what I would label the laws of physics. God is responsible for quantum entanglement being consistent everywhere it is tested. God is what makes teleportation possible, etc.. It's not the same as if we are talking to a person. God is not a person. God is a metaphysical order that covers a wide-range of phenomena in the world. However, the structure of this metaphysical order is unique in that it is capable of approaching our lives personally if we allow God to do so. This means that the laws of physics are everywhere, not just in terms of sustaining the universe, but also in economics as an invisible hand, in evolution as an agent that is constantly moving the world to greater complexity, etc., etc.. This same metaphysical order comprehends and responds to concepts, communities, events, etc., and is again moving things forward along the path toward complexity and, eventually, goodness.

Some people look at life and declare that it must all have been deliberately designed because it seems to be incredibly complex. Others look past the complexity and find a simple algorithm that explains why such complexity can be created without external guidance. But you are presenting a third-way whereby you accept the mechanisms revealed by scientific investigation, but define god as permeating the fabric of the universe so that you can put him in charge of each and every operation. This allows you to rationalize whatever outcomes we see as being a product of his will. I don't find this at all engaging because it strikes me that whatever plan you care to imagine god having, you can cast around for evidence in the natural world to support the notion.

I think evolution is the natural process by which this metaphysical order moves the world. This order is expressed in terms of laws, many of those laws we understand. There are many laws that we don't understand, so we have many years to go where humans, if we survive, will learn more of those laws. Therefore, in my view, there is nothing hopeless in terms of a leave it to a "God did it." We can know as much as we are capable of knowing.

Now it is true that we could never tell this apart from the version which operates without a will, and therefore you might suggest that everyone should at least be Agnostic about god, except for the fact that this unexpected will places a considerable additional burden on the algorithm hence the justification for the Atheists interpretation.

Atheism is not justified because a) it tries to rule out that which it is totally incapable of ruling out based on what we know of the mathematical nature of the laws, and b) it is ultimately based on a gamblers wishful dream of trying to understand order as a manner of chance instead a manner of mechanism. The history of science is based on some randomness, but mechanism is by far the major reason for the success of science. Until atheists accept that the universe has basic mechanisms at the heart of reality that push the universe in certain directions, I think they will always come up against science. We see this in terms of how many atheists are trying to refute the results of quantum teleportation, complexity science, etc., which lead one to at least a pantheist interpretation of the laws.

[harvey1]

Since you were unable to show that this argument was unreasonable then it seems strange that you should discount this explanation or pretend that you have not had sufficient information to form a judgement which you obviously have.

I have given you some counter arguments, but now you want to really discuss in depth. So, let's start the discussion off the right way, and layout your complete ideas. I think that if you go through this exercise you'll see why it won't work just by citing your premises, etc..

Ok. you say that this or that is due to God doing this or that. That is not a proper argument.

That example isn't an example.

So are you contending that it is not reality that dictates what is real but what you believe to be the case that dictates it?

Huh? Where did you get that idea?

I see the problem as the definition of mind as indivisible when presented with problem x and the definition as a "kernel" when presented with problem y.

Think of the human brain as an analogy. The brain stem does not perform heavy duty cognitive thoughts. The brain stem performs tasks that are somewhat mundane, but the tasks are dedicated to its function. Similarly, the lower self of God performs trivial tasks such as maintain entangled ties between partners separated in time and space, etc.. The higher cognitive functions of God are constantly stearing the world in the direction that God knows the world should go and must go, so God's higher self intervenes without violating the lower self.

But the idea of truth as an argument supporting that of the precedence of language was introduced by you alone. My argument is that language is not needed. I think your answer supports this.

How do you figure? Language is the truth statements that are true. A library of truth statements exist, interpreted by God and accepted as true, and from that library more truths are made known. Why would you say language is not needed? The semantic meaning of each truth statement is language based.

[Curious]

I have given you some counter arguments, but now you want to really discuss in depth. So, let's start the discussion off the right way, and layout your complete ideas. I think that if you go through this exercise you'll see why it won't work just by citing your premises, etc..

I think that this discussion has already happened and we are in imminent danger of creating an aside to this thread.

Ok. you say that this or that is due to God doing this or that. That is not a proper argument.

That example isn't an example.

What I am saying is that YOU must give reasoning not just opinion supporting your argument. What I describe above is an example of the type of argument you make. God does this so this happens is not a valid argument. You give no reasoning to support your statement. This is the philosophy forum not the messiah forum. You cannot expect other people to back up their arguments if you will not do it yourself.

So are you contending that it is not reality that dictates what is real but what you believe to be the case that dictates it?

Huh? Where did you get that idea?

You seemed to be asserting your belief rather than fact as a counter argument thats all.

I see the problem as the definition of mind as indivisible when presented with problem x and the definition as a "kernel" when presented with problem y.

Think of the human brain as an analogy. The brain stem does not perform heavy duty cognitive thoughts. The brain stem performs tasks that are somewhat mundane, but the tasks are dedicated to its function. Similarly, the lower self of God performs trivial tasks such as maintain entangled ties between partners separated in time and space, etc.. The higher cognitive functions of God are constantly stearing the world in the direction that God knows the world should go and must go, so God's higher self intervenes without violating the lower self.

How is this anything other than conjecture?

But the idea of truth as an argument supporting that of the precedence of language was introduced by you alone. My argument is that language is not needed. I think your answer supports this.

How do you figure? Language is the truth statements that are true. A library of truth statements exist, interpreted by God and accepted as true, and from that library more truths are made known. Why would you say language is not needed? The semantic meaning of each truth statement is language based.

But surely it is the touch of the unicorns horn that makes truth and the lie is the print left by it's hoof. If you are willing to back up anything you say with factual evidence or at least the semblance of reason I would be happy to listen.

[Curious]

I have given you some counter arguments, but now you want to really discuss in depth. So, let's start the discussion off the right way, and layout your complete ideas. I think that if you go through this exercise you'll see why it won't work just by citing your premises, etc..

I think that this discussion has already happened and we are in imminent danger of creating an aside to this thread.

Ok. you say that this or that is due to God doing this or that. That is not a proper argument.

That example isn't an example.

What I am saying is that YOU must give reasoning not just opinion supporting your argument. What I describe above is an example of the type of argument you make. God does this so this happens is not a valid argument. You give no reasoning to support your statement. This is the philosophy forum not the messiah forum. You cannot expect other people to back up their arguments if you will not do it yourself.

So are you contending that it is not reality that dictates what is real but what you believe to be the case that dictates it?

Huh? Where did you get that idea?

You seemed to be asserting your belief rather than fact as a counter argument thats all.

I see the problem as the definition of mind as indivisible when presented with problem x and the definition as a "kernel" when presented with problem y.

Think of the human brain as an analogy. The brain stem does not perform heavy duty cognitive thoughts. The brain stem performs tasks that are somewhat mundane, but the tasks are dedicated to its function. Similarly, the lower self of God performs trivial tasks such as maintain entangled ties between partners separated in time and space, etc.. The higher cognitive functions of God are constantly stearing the world in the direction that God knows the world should go and must go, so God's higher self intervenes without violating the lower self.

How is this anything other than conjecture?

But the idea of truth as an argument supporting that of the precedence of language was introduced by you alone. My argument is that language is not needed. I think your answer supports this.

How do you figure? Language is the truth statements that are true. A library of truth statements exist, interpreted by God and accepted as true, and from that library more truths are made known. Why would you say language is not needed? The semantic meaning of each truth statement is language based.

But surely it is the touch of the unicorns horn that makes truth and the lie is the print left by it's hoof. If you are willing to back up anything you say with factual evidence or at least the semblance of reason I would be happy to listen.