Does Matter Really Exist?

[bruto]

Originally Posted by Iacchus :
I have done nothing other than employ Occam's razor, regarding my own circumstances. If I understood that my use of subsets was incorrect, then I wouldn't have used it. It did help me further develop my ideas, however.

Ockham explicitly exempted theology and revelation from the principle of parsimony, as he also declared that the existence of God could not be proven, and faith could not be subjected to logic. But if you wish to apply the razor, you could start on time and space, which Ockham quite explicitly regarded as properties of the universe entirely contingent on the physical universe. He would never have graphed space and the universe on the same piece of paper.

Here's a little snippet of Ockham, as quoted (and presumably translated) by Frederick Copleston:

Nouns which are derived from verbs and also nouns which derive from adverbs, conjunctions, preopsitions and in general from syncategorematic terms....have been introduced only for the sake of brevity in speaking or as ornaments of speech; and many of them are equivalent in signification to propositions, when they do not stand for the terms from which they derive; and so they do not signify any things in addition to those from which they derive....Of this kind are all nouns of the following kind: negation, privation,condition, perseity, contingency, universality, action, passion,....change, motion, and in general all verbal nouns deriving from verbs which belong to the categories of agere and pati, and many others, which cannot be treated now.

In short, just because you can make a noun from a verb, this does not make the thing it describes an entity.

I'm not surprised at your scanty understanding of Ockham's razor or the way you swing it around regardless, but try not to cut yourself.

 

[bruto]

It is not a mystery to "he" who understands. This is why we call them mystics.

So who is this "he" and whom are you quoting when you denote him as such? Or are you using the quotation marks ironically, to suggest that the person referred to is of questionable gender? Or is this a use of the term "he" that deviates in some way from the standard sense of the word? Or are you, in the sense that I am enclosing "he" in quotation marks in this sentence and others, suggesting that the "he" in your sentence is to be taken as the word, rather than the thing it is usually expected to denote?

In case you hadn't cottoned on by now, the use of quotation marks for emphasis alone is not only a bad habit stylistically, but just plain bad grammar.

So can a mystic explain his mysteries? By which I mean, actually elucidate them, in addition to merely asserting them? Hiint: saying that it's a mystery does not constitute elucidation.

 

[Iacchus]

Oh, is that why?

I gotta get my dictionary fixed...

Either there is something there that these folks work with or there isn't. Or, they could be totally delusional. Or, if they are "hearing voices," maybe they're just listening to the wrong ones?

 

[Belz...]

And I don't suppose you remember the original post?

Actually, if you look at the thread subject, you'll see it has nothing to do with God.

 

[Belz...]

Because you are unwilling to look within perhaps?

I thought your mind resided OUTSIDE the universe. So, how is it within, now ?

 

[Belz...]

That still doesn't explain what that "you" is that is observing it.

Yes. Yes it DOES. You're so evasive, though, that I never get a straight answer to ANY of my questions.

Here goes again: WHAT is SO MYSTERIOUS about the universe ?

The greater circle (of consciousness) stands outside of, as well as within the lesser circle (of time and space).

As long as you continue to picture these things in spatial terms, there is no hope that you'll understand anything.

 

[Belz...]

So, what is the point of time and space, without the awareness of time and space?

Point ? Why would there be a point ?

 

[Belz...]

Only the mind can know what knowledge is. Therefore it is experiential. In which case you do not in fact know what I know ... because you haven't experienced it.

Does a computer know something ?

 

[Belz...]

I have done nothing other than employ Occam's razor, regarding my own circumstances. If I understood that my use of subsets was incorrect, then I wouldn't have used it. It did help me further develop my ideas, however.

You're not using the razor... you're not looking for the most parsimonous or simplest explanation. You have ONE explanation you WANT to believe in and you believe it. How is that applying reason ?

You're assuming, again, that your perceptions are not only more convincing than the entire history of science, but you're also assuming that they are better than EVERYBODY ELSE's perceptions. That is arrogant in the extreme.

 

[Mercutio]

Either there is something there that these folks work with or there isn't. Or, they could be totally delusional. Or, if they are "hearing voices," maybe they're just listening to the wrong ones?

Wait, so now it is "they"? I thought it was you.

And Occam would have you seriously examine the possibility that there is "nothing there" or (and they are indeed separate) that they are delusional. Turns out, even if there is "nothing there", we know enough about our perceptual and cognitive processes to explain why it is that some would still see "something there".

But then, you have had this explained to you before, in the context of your numerology. So you already knew to discount your subjective "evidence".

 

[Iacchus]

Wait, so now it is "they"? I thought it was you.

And does it not become a they when you refer to the dictionary? I was just trying to help you out with your definition there.

And Occam would have you seriously examine the possibility that there is "nothing there" or (and they are indeed separate) that they are delusional. Turns out, even if there is "nothing there", we know enough about our perceptual and cognitive processes to explain why it is that some would still see "something there".

To the depth that I have seen things, I could hardly imagine.

But then, you have had this explained to you before, in the context of your numerology. So you already knew to discount your subjective "evidence".

The numberology is something you have to work with in order to appreciate its significance. Neither am I going to ruin it for myself by forcing it upon those who show no interest or inclination. This is not how it was presented to me. In fact that pretty much explains my whole behavior on these forums. You folks keep insisting that I present something to you in a way that it was not presented to me.

 

[Iacchus]

Ockham explicitly exempted theology and revelation from the principle of parsimony, as he also declared that the existence of God could not be proven, and faith could not be subjected to logic.

Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle have argued otherwise.

 

[Iacchus]

Point ? Why would there be a point ?

Why create anything without the means of recognition? How would one thing know how to behave towards another? Shouldn't this be preliminary, and have to come first, before anything else is established?

 

[Iacchus]

I thought your mind resided OUTSIDE the universe. So, how is it within, now ?

How does a circle reside within a circle, and not be influenced by the outer circle if, in fact it's derived from the outer circle? Indeed, if consciousness were the basis for the material world, shouldn't it reside both within and without of the material world? And thus be able to look at all the withouts of the withins -- the "exterior shell" of each interior circle ... so to speak -- because it actually resides within the without, of the one great circle as a whole.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

To add to what Iacchus just said, I think it was Calvin Thomas who observed:

The excrementalization of alterity as the site/sight of homelessness, of utter outsideness and unsubiatable dispossession figure(s) in . . . Hegel's metanarrational conception of Enlightenment modernity as the teleological process of totalization leading to absolute knowing.


~~ Paul

 

[bruto]

Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle have argued otherwise.

So what? We were talking about Ockham and his razor, not Aquinas. There is no "Aquinas's Razor." If you use the razor on theology, it is not Ockham's razor any more, it is Iacchus's razor.

 

[Belz...]

The numberology is something you have to work with in order to appreciate its significance.

Did you mean Numerology... or Dumberology ?

You folks keep insisting that I present something to you in a way that it was not presented to me.

Why don't you read up about it, and THEN present it properly ?

 

[Belz...]

Why create anything without the means of recognition? How would one thing know how to behave towards another? Shouldn't this be preliminary, and have to come first, before anything else is established?

Again, you assume your conclusion. You ask "Why" ? But the why is dependent upon the existence of a creator.

So a better question to you is this: If there is no creator, would there be a need for a point to all this ?

 

[Belz...]

How does a circle reside within a circle, and not be influenced by the outer circle if, in fact it's derived from the outer circle? Indeed, if consciousness were the basis for the material world, shouldn't it reside both within and without of the material world? And thus be able to look at all the withouts of the withins -- the "exterior shell" of each interior circle ... so to speak -- because it actually resides within the without, of the one great circle as a whole.

Pretty pointless to ask all those questions, since we don't even know WHAT consciousness is, exactly, and since you haven't established that it IS the basis for the material world.

 

[Iacchus]

So what? We were talking about Ockham and his razor, not Aquinas. There is no "Aquinas's Razor." If you use the razor on theology, it is not Ockham's razor any more, it is Iacchus's razor.

Their arguments are very logical and rational, however.