Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

Modal Transcendental Argument for God

zmikecuber
Posts: 4,092
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 7:13:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
N means Necessity operator.
M means "a mind exists."
L means necessary abstract objects like laws of logic, and forms, etc.

P1: N(L ---> M)
P2: N(L) ---> N(M)
P3: N(L)
C: N(M)

P2 is true by modal modus ponens. P1 just states "It is necessary that: If abstract objects exist, then a mind exists."

Thoughts? I don't think this is quite sound yet, but if someone could defend a sort of Neo-Platonism, it could work maybe.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Subutai
Posts: 3,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 8:13:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 7:13:20 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
N means Necessity operator.
M means "a mind exists."
L means necessary abstract objects like laws of logic, and forms, etc.

P1: N(L ---> M)
P2: N(L) ---> N(M)
P3: N(L)
C: N(M)

P2 is true by modal modus ponens. P1 just states "It is necessary that: If abstract objects exist, then a mind exists."

Thoughts? I don't think this is quite sound yet, but if someone could defend a sort of Neo-Platonism, it could work maybe.

The TAG relies on a false equivocation of a description of L as being L itself. The facts of logic (say) are not dependent on the existence of an ultimate and necessary mind, but rather on the existence of something. However, that doesn't mean we can describe what that reality is from the facts of logic themselves, nor can we describe the foundation of reality. What this means is that the fact that there is logic is not dependent on a transcendent mind.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,092
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 8:14:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 8:13:14 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 3/19/2014 7:13:20 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
N means Necessity operator.
M means "a mind exists."
L means necessary abstract objects like laws of logic, and forms, etc.

P1: N(L ---> M)
P2: N(L) ---> N(M)
P3: N(L)
C: N(M)

P2 is true by modal modus ponens. P1 just states "It is necessary that: If abstract objects exist, then a mind exists."

Thoughts? I don't think this is quite sound yet, but if someone could defend a sort of Neo-Platonism, it could work maybe.

The TAG relies on a false equivocation of a description of L as being L itself. The facts of logic (say) are not dependent on the existence of an ultimate and necessary mind, but rather on the existence of something. However, that doesn't mean we can describe what that reality is from the facts of logic themselves, nor can we describe the foundation of reality. What this means is that the fact that there is logic is not dependent on a transcendent mind.

So if there wasn't anything physical in existence, there wouldn't be any logical axioms or abstract objects? Because they're just abstractions in your view, correct?
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Subutai
Posts: 3,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 8:16:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 8:14:14 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/19/2014 8:13:14 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 3/19/2014 7:13:20 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
N means Necessity operator.
M means "a mind exists."
L means necessary abstract objects like laws of logic, and forms, etc.

P1: N(L ---> M)
P2: N(L) ---> N(M)
P3: N(L)
C: N(M)

P2 is true by modal modus ponens. P1 just states "It is necessary that: If abstract objects exist, then a mind exists."

Thoughts? I don't think this is quite sound yet, but if someone could defend a sort of Neo-Platonism, it could work maybe.

The TAG relies on a false equivocation of a description of L as being L itself. The facts of logic (say) are not dependent on the existence of an ultimate and necessary mind, but rather on the existence of something. However, that doesn't mean we can describe what that reality is from the facts of logic themselves, nor can we describe the foundation of reality. What this means is that the fact that there is logic is not dependent on a transcendent mind.

So if there wasn't anything physical in existence, there wouldn't be any logical axioms or abstract objects? Because they're just abstractions in your view, correct?

You can't really form a deductive argument when nothing exists for you to base your argument on.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,092
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 8:18:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 8:16:38 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 3/19/2014 8:14:14 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/19/2014 8:13:14 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 3/19/2014 7:13:20 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
N means Necessity operator.
M means "a mind exists."
L means necessary abstract objects like laws of logic, and forms, etc.

P1: N(L ---> M)
P2: N(L) ---> N(M)
P3: N(L)
C: N(M)

P2 is true by modal modus ponens. P1 just states "It is necessary that: If abstract objects exist, then a mind exists."

Thoughts? I don't think this is quite sound yet, but if someone could defend a sort of Neo-Platonism, it could work maybe.

The TAG relies on a false equivocation of a description of L as being L itself. The facts of logic (say) are not dependent on the existence of an ultimate and necessary mind, but rather on the existence of something. However, that doesn't mean we can describe what that reality is from the facts of logic themselves, nor can we describe the foundation of reality. What this means is that the fact that there is logic is not dependent on a transcendent mind.

So if there wasn't anything physical in existence, there wouldn't be any logical axioms or abstract objects? Because they're just abstractions in your view, correct?

You can't really form a deductive argument when nothing exists for you to base your argument on.

So you're saying if there was nothing physical, then there wouldn't be abstract objects or logical axioms?
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Subutai
Posts: 3,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 8:19:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 8:18:05 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/19/2014 8:16:38 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 3/19/2014 8:14:14 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/19/2014 8:13:14 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 3/19/2014 7:13:20 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
N means Necessity operator.
M means "a mind exists."
L means necessary abstract objects like laws of logic, and forms, etc.

P1: N(L ---> M)
P2: N(L) ---> N(M)
P3: N(L)
C: N(M)

P2 is true by modal modus ponens. P1 just states "It is necessary that: If abstract objects exist, then a mind exists."

Thoughts? I don't think this is quite sound yet, but if someone could defend a sort of Neo-Platonism, it could work maybe.

The TAG relies on a false equivocation of a description of L as being L itself. The facts of logic (say) are not dependent on the existence of an ultimate and necessary mind, but rather on the existence of something. However, that doesn't mean we can describe what that reality is from the facts of logic themselves, nor can we describe the foundation of reality. What this means is that the fact that there is logic is not dependent on a transcendent mind.

So if there wasn't anything physical in existence, there wouldn't be any logical axioms or abstract objects? Because they're just abstractions in your view, correct?

You can't really form a deductive argument when nothing exists for you to base your argument on.

So you're saying if there was nothing physical, then there wouldn't be abstract objects or logical axioms?

Define "physical".
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
Legitdebater
Posts: 76
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 8:21:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 8:19:22 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 3/19/2014 8:18:05 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/19/2014 8:16:38 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 3/19/2014 8:14:14 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/19/2014 8:13:14 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 3/19/2014 7:13:20 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
N means Necessity operator.
M means "a mind exists."
L means necessary abstract objects like laws of logic, and forms, etc.

P1: N(L ---> M)
P2: N(L) ---> N(M)
P3: N(L)
C: N(M)

P2 is true by modal modus ponens. P1 just states "It is necessary that: If abstract objects exist, then a mind exists."

Thoughts? I don't think this is quite sound yet, but if someone could defend a sort of Neo-Platonism, it could work maybe.

The TAG relies on a false equivocation of a description of L as being L itself. The facts of logic (say) are not dependent on the existence of an ultimate and necessary mind, but rather on the existence of something. However, that doesn't mean we can describe what that reality is from the facts of logic themselves, nor can we describe the foundation of reality. What this means is that the fact that there is logic is not dependent on a transcendent mind.

So if there wasn't anything physical in existence, there wouldn't be any logical axioms or abstract objects? Because they're just abstractions in your view, correct?

You can't really form a deductive argument when nothing exists for you to base your argument on.

So you're saying if there was nothing physical, then there wouldn't be abstract objects or logical axioms?

Define "physical".

Wrecked mate....
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,092
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 8:24:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 8:19:22 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 3/19/2014 8:18:05 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/19/2014 8:16:38 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 3/19/2014 8:14:14 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/19/2014 8:13:14 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 3/19/2014 7:13:20 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
N means Necessity operator.
M means "a mind exists."
L means necessary abstract objects like laws of logic, and forms, etc.

P1: N(L ---> M)
P2: N(L) ---> N(M)
P3: N(L)
C: N(M)

P2 is true by modal modus ponens. P1 just states "It is necessary that: If abstract objects exist, then a mind exists."

Thoughts? I don't think this is quite sound yet, but if someone could defend a sort of Neo-Platonism, it could work maybe.

The TAG relies on a false equivocation of a description of L as being L itself. The facts of logic (say) are not dependent on the existence of an ultimate and necessary mind, but rather on the existence of something. However, that doesn't mean we can describe what that reality is from the facts of logic themselves, nor can we describe the foundation of reality. What this means is that the fact that there is logic is not dependent on a transcendent mind.

So if there wasn't anything physical in existence, there wouldn't be any logical axioms or abstract objects? Because they're just abstractions in your view, correct?

You can't really form a deductive argument when nothing exists for you to base your argument on.

So you're saying if there was nothing physical, then there wouldn't be abstract objects or logical axioms?

Define "physical".

Matter/energy
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Subutai
Posts: 3,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 8:25:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 8:24:19 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/19/2014 8:19:22 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 3/19/2014 8:18:05 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/19/2014 8:16:38 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 3/19/2014 8:14:14 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/19/2014 8:13:14 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 3/19/2014 7:13:20 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
N means Necessity operator.
M means "a mind exists."
L means necessary abstract objects like laws of logic, and forms, etc.

P1: N(L ---> M)
P2: N(L) ---> N(M)
P3: N(L)
C: N(M)

P2 is true by modal modus ponens. P1 just states "It is necessary that: If abstract objects exist, then a mind exists."

Thoughts? I don't think this is quite sound yet, but if someone could defend a sort of Neo-Platonism, it could work maybe.

The TAG relies on a false equivocation of a description of L as being L itself. The facts of logic (say) are not dependent on the existence of an ultimate and necessary mind, but rather on the existence of something. However, that doesn't mean we can describe what that reality is from the facts of logic themselves, nor can we describe the foundation of reality. What this means is that the fact that there is logic is not dependent on a transcendent mind.

So if there wasn't anything physical in existence, there wouldn't be any logical axioms or abstract objects? Because they're just abstractions in your view, correct?

You can't really form a deductive argument when nothing exists for you to base your argument on.

So you're saying if there was nothing physical, then there wouldn't be abstract objects or logical axioms?

Define "physical".

Matter/energy

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle states that even empty space can teem with energy, and therefore matter, meaning that there are always physical objects in the universe.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,092
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 8:27:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 8:25:52 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 3/19/2014 8:24:19 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/19/2014 8:19:22 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 3/19/2014 8:18:05 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/19/2014 8:16:38 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 3/19/2014 8:14:14 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/19/2014 8:13:14 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 3/19/2014 7:13:20 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
N means Necessity operator.
M means "a mind exists."
L means necessary abstract objects like laws of logic, and forms, etc.

P1: N(L ---> M)
P2: N(L) ---> N(M)
P3: N(L)
C: N(M)

P2 is true by modal modus ponens. P1 just states "It is necessary that: If abstract objects exist, then a mind exists."

Thoughts? I don't think this is quite sound yet, but if someone could defend a sort of Neo-Platonism, it could work maybe.

The TAG relies on a false equivocation of a description of L as being L itself. The facts of logic (say) are not dependent on the existence of an ultimate and necessary mind, but rather on the existence of something. However, that doesn't mean we can describe what that reality is from the facts of logic themselves, nor can we describe the foundation of reality. What this means is that the fact that there is logic is not dependent on a transcendent mind.

So if there wasn't anything physical in existence, there wouldn't be any logical axioms or abstract objects? Because they're just abstractions in your view, correct?

You can't really form a deductive argument when nothing exists for you to base your argument on.

So you're saying if there was nothing physical, then there wouldn't be abstract objects or logical axioms?

Define "physical".

Matter/energy

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle states that even empty space can teem with energy, and therefore matter, meaning that there are always physical objects in the universe.

Yeah but in a possible world where space/time or any energy and matter doesn't exist, are there logical axioms and abstract objects?
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Subutai
Posts: 3,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 8:28:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 8:27:29 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/19/2014 8:25:52 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 3/19/2014 8:24:19 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/19/2014 8:19:22 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 3/19/2014 8:18:05 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/19/2014 8:16:38 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 3/19/2014 8:14:14 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/19/2014 8:13:14 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 3/19/2014 7:13:20 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
N means Necessity operator.
M means "a mind exists."
L means necessary abstract objects like laws of logic, and forms, etc.

P1: N(L ---> M)
P2: N(L) ---> N(M)
P3: N(L)
C: N(M)

P2 is true by modal modus ponens. P1 just states "It is necessary that: If abstract objects exist, then a mind exists."

Thoughts? I don't think this is quite sound yet, but if someone could defend a sort of Neo-Platonism, it could work maybe.

The TAG relies on a false equivocation of a description of L as being L itself. The facts of logic (say) are not dependent on the existence of an ultimate and necessary mind, but rather on the existence of something. However, that doesn't mean we can describe what that reality is from the facts of logic themselves, nor can we describe the foundation of reality. What this means is that the fact that there is logic is not dependent on a transcendent mind.

So if there wasn't anything physical in existence, there wouldn't be any logical axioms or abstract objects? Because they're just abstractions in your view, correct?

You can't really form a deductive argument when nothing exists for you to base your argument on.

So you're saying if there was nothing physical, then there wouldn't be abstract objects or logical axioms?

Define "physical".

Matter/energy

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle states that even empty space can teem with energy, and therefore matter, meaning that there are always physical objects in the universe.

Yeah but in a possible world where space/time or any energy and matter doesn't exist, are there logical axioms and abstract objects?

I honestly can't answer that. I still only have a rudimentary understanding of philosophy, especially abstract, otherworldly philosophy. I was speaking mainly about the actual validity of such an argument in the real world.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 8:31:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 8:18:05 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/19/2014 8:16:38 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 3/19/2014 8:14:14 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/19/2014 8:13:14 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 3/19/2014 7:13:20 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
N means Necessity operator.
M means "a mind exists."
L means necessary abstract objects like laws of logic, and forms, etc.

P1: N(L ---> M)
P2: N(L) ---> N(M)
P3: N(L)
C: N(M)

P2 is true by modal modus ponens. P1 just states "It is necessary that: If abstract objects exist, then a mind exists."

Thoughts? I don't think this is quite sound yet, but if someone could defend a sort of Neo-Platonism, it could work maybe.

The TAG relies on a false equivocation of a description of L as being L itself. The facts of logic (say) are not dependent on the existence of an ultimate and necessary mind, but rather on the existence of something. However, that doesn't mean we can describe what that reality is from the facts of logic themselves, nor can we describe the foundation of reality. What this means is that the fact that there is logic is not dependent on a transcendent mind.

So if there wasn't anything physical in existence, there wouldn't be any logical axioms or abstract objects? Because they're just abstractions in your view, correct?

You can't really form a deductive argument when nothing exists for you to base your argument on.

So you're saying if there was nothing physical, then there wouldn't be abstract objects or logical axioms?

It could be that even the nature of nonexistence has these laws. If not, then it seems as if they could easily come to be. Since there are no logical laws.

Or maybe nonexistence is impossible so the question makes no sense.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 9:34:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 8:27:29 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Yeah but in a possible world where space/time or any energy and matter doesn't exist, are there logical axioms and abstract objects?

Logic doesn't apply independently of subjectivity to the world regardless of whether that world 'is' without any existent (and we don't need scientists to tell us such an idea is nonsense). Logic is not an object, and it has no import into the world 'itself', only to cognition.

Yes, it is necessary for a mind to exist for abstractions to exist, but this doesn't prove a god because we don't need to account for any more abstractions than those which exist in our mind. What we perceive in the moment is in itself not abstracted yet.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
ExsurgeDomine
Posts: 176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 9:46:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 7:13:20 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
N means Necessity operator.
M means "a mind exists."
L means necessary abstract objects like laws of logic, and forms, etc.

P1: N(L ---> M)
P2: N(L) ---> N(M)
P3: N(L)
C: N(M)

P2 is true by modal modus ponens. P1 just states "It is necessary that: If abstract objects exist, then a mind exists."

What would be the justification for P1? Please forgive me if I'm being obtuse.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 10:16:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 7:13:20 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
N means Necessity operator.
M means "a mind exists."
L means necessary abstract objects like laws of logic, and forms, etc.

P1: N(L ---> M)
P2: N(L) ---> N(M)
P3: N(L)
C: N(M)

P2 is true by modal modus ponens. P1 just states "It is necessary that: If abstract objects exist, then a mind exists."

Thoughts? I don't think this is quite sound yet, but if someone could defend a sort of Neo-Platonism, it could work maybe.

That's not a good restatement of P1--you left out the "necessary" qualifier for "abstract objects".

Also, it can trivially be argued that to recognize or state the an abstract object requires a mind, yes--only a mind can recognize or state something--but not that a mind is necessary for them to be true statements about reality. Unless you reject objective reality in the absence of a mind, in which case your argument is rather different than what you're presenting here.

That the law of noncontradiction and the law of identity are a true statements about reality and do not require the existence of a mind. To recognize the law of noncontradiction as a law requires a mind. But in the absence of a mind, assuming an objective reality things will continue to be themselves, and not to contradict themselves.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,092
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2014 10:28:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 9:46:58 PM, ExsurgeDomine wrote:
At 3/19/2014 7:13:20 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
N means Necessity operator.
M means "a mind exists."
L means necessary abstract objects like laws of logic, and forms, etc.

P1: N(L ---> M)
P2: N(L) ---> N(M)
P3: N(L)
C: N(M)

P2 is true by modal modus ponens. P1 just states "It is necessary that: If abstract objects exist, then a mind exists."

What would be the justification for P1? Please forgive me if I'm being obtuse.

Well it would depend on philosophy of mind. It's pretty much saying that if abstract objects exist, then a mind exists. I agree with this, because abstract objects exist as thoughts in our minds, which I believe is immaterial. So I think abstract objects are immaterial essences that exist only inasmuch as a mind thinks them.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,092
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2014 10:30:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 10:16:30 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/19/2014 7:13:20 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
N means Necessity operator.
M means "a mind exists."
L means necessary abstract objects like laws of logic, and forms, etc.

P1: N(L ---> M)
P2: N(L) ---> N(M)
P3: N(L)
C: N(M)

P2 is true by modal modus ponens. P1 just states "It is necessary that: If abstract objects exist, then a mind exists."

Thoughts? I don't think this is quite sound yet, but if someone could defend a sort of Neo-Platonism, it could work maybe.

That's not a good restatement of P1--you left out the "necessary" qualifier for "abstract objects".


It just says... In all possible worlds: If abstract objects exist, then a mind exists.

Also, it can trivially be argued that to recognize or state the an abstract object requires a mind, yes--only a mind can recognize or state something--but not that a mind is necessary for them to be true statements about reality. Unless you reject objective reality in the absence of a mind, in which case your argument is rather different than what you're presenting here.

That the law of noncontradiction and the law of identity are a true statements about reality and do not require the existence of a mind. To recognize the law of noncontradiction as a law requires a mind. But in the absence of a mind, assuming an objective reality things will continue to be themselves, and not to contradict themselves.

So you're positing that the LNC exists in a type of third realm? As in a Platonic realm?
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2014 10:59:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/20/2014 10:30:27 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/19/2014 10:16:30 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/19/2014 7:13:20 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
N means Necessity operator.
M means "a mind exists."
L means necessary abstract objects like laws of logic, and forms, etc.

P1: N(L ---> M)
P2: N(L) ---> N(M)
P3: N(L)
C: N(M)

P2 is true by modal modus ponens. P1 just states "It is necessary that: If abstract objects exist, then a mind exists."

Thoughts? I don't think this is quite sound yet, but if someone could defend a sort of Neo-Platonism, it could work maybe.

That's not a good restatement of P1--you left out the "necessary" qualifier for "abstract objects".


It just says... In all possible worlds: If abstract objects exist, then a mind exists.

Again, you left out the necessary qualifier. "L means necessary abstract objects like laws of logic, and forms, etc."

I disagree that there are such a thing as necessary abstract objects.

I agree that the existence of abstract objects require a mind to conceptualize the abstraction. I don't agree that there are any necessary abstract objects. Just because the law of identity is a description of reality, doesn't mean it exists as an abstract object.

Also, it can trivially be argued that to recognize or state the an abstract object requires a mind, yes--only a mind can recognize or state something--but not that a mind is necessary for them to be true statements about reality. Unless you reject objective reality in the absence of a mind, in which case your argument is rather different than what you're presenting here.

That the law of noncontradiction and the law of identity are a true statements about reality and do not require the existence of a mind. To recognize the law of noncontradiction as a law requires a mind. But in the absence of a mind, assuming an objective reality things will continue to be themselves, and not to contradict themselves.

So you're positing that the LNC exists in a type of third realm? As in a Platonic realm?

No.

I'm saying that the laws of logic are descriptions of what is, and what could be. They are abstractions of reality, and there is nothing necessary about the abstraction. What's necessary is that the universe conforms to what the abstraction represents.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,092
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2014 11:26:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/20/2014 10:59:14 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/20/2014 10:30:27 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/19/2014 10:16:30 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/19/2014 7:13:20 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
N means Necessity operator.
M means "a mind exists."
L means necessary abstract objects like laws of logic, and forms, etc.

P1: N(L ---> M)
P2: N(L) ---> N(M)
P3: N(L)
C: N(M)

P2 is true by modal modus ponens. P1 just states "It is necessary that: If abstract objects exist, then a mind exists."

Thoughts? I don't think this is quite sound yet, but if someone could defend a sort of Neo-Platonism, it could work maybe.

That's not a good restatement of P1--you left out the "necessary" qualifier for "abstract objects".


It just says... In all possible worlds: If abstract objects exist, then a mind exists.

Again, you left out the necessary qualifier. "L means necessary abstract objects like laws of logic, and forms, etc."


I must have made a typo... That "necessary" shouldn't be in there in the first place, cuz that's stated later in P3.

I disagree that there are such a thing as necessary abstract objects.


Ok.

I agree that the existence of abstract objects require a mind to conceptualize the abstraction. I don't agree that there are any necessary abstract objects. Just because the law of identity is a description of reality, doesn't mean it exists as an abstract object.


Right. So let me put it this way...

Take the proposition:

A triangle is a three sided geometric figure the interior angles of which add up to 180 degrees.

Is this statement true in all possible worlds? If yes, then it's a necessary truth. If no, then it's possible to be false in some possible world.

And this proposition only exists inasmuch as a mind exists to think it. Yet it exists in all possible worlds.

Ergo, some intellect exists in all possible worlds.

Also, it can trivially be argued that to recognize or state the an abstract object requires a mind, yes--only a mind can recognize or state something--but not that a mind is necessary for them to be true statements about reality. Unless you reject objective reality in the absence of a mind, in which case your argument is rather different than what you're presenting here.

That the law of noncontradiction and the law of identity are a true statements about reality and do not require the existence of a mind. To recognize the law of noncontradiction as a law requires a mind. But in the absence of a mind, assuming an objective reality things will continue to be themselves, and not to contradict themselves.

So you're positing that the LNC exists in a type of third realm? As in a Platonic realm?

No.

I'm saying that the laws of logic are descriptions of what is, and what could be. They are abstractions of reality, and there is nothing necessary about the abstraction. What's necessary is that the universe conforms to what the abstraction represents.

What about the concept of "abstraction"? Is that an abstraction?
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,092
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2014 11:27:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 8:28:51 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 3/19/2014 8:27:29 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/19/2014 8:25:52 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 3/19/2014 8:24:19 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/19/2014 8:19:22 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 3/19/2014 8:18:05 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/19/2014 8:16:38 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 3/19/2014 8:14:14 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/19/2014 8:13:14 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 3/19/2014 7:13:20 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
N means Necessity operator.
M means "a mind exists."
L means necessary abstract objects like laws of logic, and forms, etc.

P1: N(L ---> M)
P2: N(L) ---> N(M)
P3: N(L)
C: N(M)

P2 is true by modal modus ponens. P1 just states "It is necessary that: If abstract objects exist, then a mind exists."

Thoughts? I don't think this is quite sound yet, but if someone could defend a sort of Neo-Platonism, it could work maybe.

The TAG relies on a false equivocation of a description of L as being L itself. The facts of logic (say) are not dependent on the existence of an ultimate and necessary mind, but rather on the existence of something. However, that doesn't mean we can describe what that reality is from the facts of logic themselves, nor can we describe the foundation of reality. What this means is that the fact that there is logic is not dependent on a transcendent mind.

So if there wasn't anything physical in existence, there wouldn't be any logical axioms or abstract objects? Because they're just abstractions in your view, correct?

You can't really form a deductive argument when nothing exists for you to base your argument on.

So you're saying if there was nothing physical, then there wouldn't be abstract objects or logical axioms?

Define "physical".

Matter/energy

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle states that even empty space can teem with energy, and therefore matter, meaning that there are always physical objects in the universe.

Yeah but in a possible world where space/time or any energy and matter doesn't exist, are there logical axioms and abstract objects?

I honestly can't answer that. I still only have a rudimentary understanding of philosophy, especially abstract, otherworldly philosophy. I was speaking mainly about the actual validity of such an argument in the real world.

Well this argument deals with possible worlds, and concludes something about reality.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2014 11:36:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/20/2014 11:26:11 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/20/2014 10:59:14 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/20/2014 10:30:27 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/19/2014 10:16:30 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/19/2014 7:13:20 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
N means Necessity operator.
M means "a mind exists."
L means necessary abstract objects like laws of logic, and forms, etc.

P1: N(L ---> M)
P2: N(L) ---> N(M)
P3: N(L)
C: N(M)

P2 is true by modal modus ponens. P1 just states "It is necessary that: If abstract objects exist, then a mind exists."

Thoughts? I don't think this is quite sound yet, but if someone could defend a sort of Neo-Platonism, it could work maybe.

That's not a good restatement of P1--you left out the "necessary" qualifier for "abstract objects".


It just says... In all possible worlds: If abstract objects exist, then a mind exists.

Again, you left out the necessary qualifier. "L means necessary abstract objects like laws of logic, and forms, etc."


I must have made a typo... That "necessary" shouldn't be in there in the first place, cuz that's stated later in P3.

Gotcha.

I disagree that there are such a thing as necessary abstract objects.
Ok.
I agree that the existence of abstract objects require a mind to conceptualize the abstraction. I don't agree that there are any necessary abstract objects. Just because the law of identity is a description of reality, doesn't mean it exists as an abstract object.
Right. So let me put it this way...
Take the proposition:
A triangle is a three sided geometric figure the interior angles of which add up to 180 degrees.
Is this statement true in all possible worlds? If yes, then it's a necessary truth. If no, then it's possible to be false in some possible world.

It's meaningless in a world without minds to describe a triangle. In such a world, there would be 3 sided figures. There would be 4 sided figures. The end.

(Also, techncially, it's not true in all possible worlds, since there is a possible world where a triangle is a four sided geometric figure the interior angles of which add up to 360 degrees).

The very existence of the concept "triangle" requires a mind necessarily. But the existence of triangles does not.

And this proposition only exists inasmuch as a mind exists to think it. Yet it exists in all possible worlds.

The proposition does not exist in all possible worlds. The truth of the proposition does (barring the exemption above). Those are two different things.

Ergo, some intellect exists in all possible worlds.
That the law of noncontradiction and the law of identity are a true statements about reality and do not require the existence of a mind. To recognize the law of noncontradiction as a law requires a mind. But in the absence of a mind, assuming an objective reality things will continue to be themselves, and not to contradict themselves.
So you're positing that the LNC exists in a type of third realm? As in a Platonic realm?
No.
I'm saying that the laws of logic are descriptions of what is, and what could be. They are abstractions of reality, and there is nothing necessary about the abstraction. What's necessary is that the universe conforms to what the abstraction represents.

What about the concept of "abstraction"? Is that an abstraction?

All concepts are, by definition, abstractions. So yes.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
ExsurgeDomine
Posts: 176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2014 11:54:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/20/2014 10:28:24 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/19/2014 9:46:58 PM, ExsurgeDomine wrote:
At 3/19/2014 7:13:20 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
N means Necessity operator.
M means "a mind exists."
L means necessary abstract objects like laws of logic, and forms, etc.

P1: N(L ---> M)
P2: N(L) ---> N(M)
P3: N(L)
C: N(M)

P2 is true by modal modus ponens. P1 just states "It is necessary that: If abstract objects exist, then a mind exists."

What would be the justification for P1? Please forgive me if I'm being obtuse.

Well it would depend on philosophy of mind. It's pretty much saying that if abstract objects exist, then a mind exists. I agree with this, because abstract objects exist as thoughts in our minds, which I believe is immaterial. So I think abstract objects are immaterial essences that exist only inasmuch as a mind thinks them.

Okay then. I don't think I've heard anyone use the term 'abstract object' to refer to something contingent upon a mind for existence, but then again I don't know much about philosophy.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2014 11:57:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/20/2014 11:54:29 AM, ExsurgeDomine wrote:
At 3/20/2014 10:28:24 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/19/2014 9:46:58 PM, ExsurgeDomine wrote:
At 3/19/2014 7:13:20 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
N means Necessity operator.
M means "a mind exists."
L means necessary abstract objects like laws of logic, and forms, etc.

P1: N(L ---> M)
P2: N(L) ---> N(M)
P3: N(L)
C: N(M)

P2 is true by modal modus ponens. P1 just states "It is necessary that: If abstract objects exist, then a mind exists."

What would be the justification for P1? Please forgive me if I'm being obtuse.

Well it would depend on philosophy of mind. It's pretty much saying that if abstract objects exist, then a mind exists. I agree with this, because abstract objects exist as thoughts in our minds, which I believe is immaterial. So I think abstract objects are immaterial essences that exist only inasmuch as a mind thinks them.

Okay then. I don't think I've heard anyone use the term 'abstract object' to refer to something contingent upon a mind for existence, but then again I don't know much about philosophy.

It very much depends on who you're talking to about it, and what they mean. Every branch has its own whole set of lingo and operators. It's actually pretty common to argue that abstract concepts require a mind--that's basically the point of Neo-Platonism, which argues for the existence of abstractions independent of human minds, then uses that to circle around and argue for a god-mind which holds them.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Subutai
Posts: 3,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2014 9:57:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/20/2014 11:27:46 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/19/2014 8:28:51 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 3/19/2014 8:27:29 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/19/2014 8:25:52 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 3/19/2014 8:24:19 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/19/2014 8:19:22 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 3/19/2014 8:18:05 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/19/2014 8:16:38 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 3/19/2014 8:14:14 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/19/2014 8:13:14 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 3/19/2014 7:13:20 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
N means Necessity operator.
M means "a mind exists."
L means necessary abstract objects like laws of logic, and forms, etc.

P1: N(L ---> M)
P2: N(L) ---> N(M)
P3: N(L)
C: N(M)

P2 is true by modal modus ponens. P1 just states "It is necessary that: If abstract objects exist, then a mind exists."

Thoughts? I don't think this is quite sound yet, but if someone could defend a sort of Neo-Platonism, it could work maybe.

The TAG relies on a false equivocation of a description of L as being L itself. The facts of logic (say) are not dependent on the existence of an ultimate and necessary mind, but rather on the existence of something. However, that doesn't mean we can describe what that reality is from the facts of logic themselves, nor can we describe the foundation of reality. What this means is that the fact that there is logic is not dependent on a transcendent mind.

So if there wasn't anything physical in existence, there wouldn't be any logical axioms or abstract objects? Because they're just abstractions in your view, correct?

You can't really form a deductive argument when nothing exists for you to base your argument on.

So you're saying if there was nothing physical, then there wouldn't be abstract objects or logical axioms?

Define "physical".

Matter/energy

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle states that even empty space can teem with energy, and therefore matter, meaning that there are always physical objects in the universe.

Yeah but in a possible world where space/time or any energy and matter doesn't exist, are there logical axioms and abstract objects?

I honestly can't answer that. I still only have a rudimentary understanding of philosophy, especially abstract, otherworldly philosophy. I was speaking mainly about the actual validity of such an argument in the real world.

Well this argument deals with possible worlds, and concludes something about reality.

What would apply in an imagined world would not necessarily apply to reality. My main point here is that there can't be axioms if there is nothing to base axioms on. Deductive logic wouldn't be able to form premises, and inductive logic couldn't exist at all. I keep felling that i could be misunderstanding your point entirely.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.