Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Can someone please explain CTMU?

Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2015 4:23:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I've heard of CTMU (cognitive-theoretic-model-of-the-universe), but I cannot seem to find out what it actually says, or how it reasons.

Can someone try to clearly explain it?
tejretics
Posts: 6,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 2:55:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/3/2015 4:23:25 PM, Philocat wrote:
I've heard of CTMU (cognitive-theoretic-model-of-the-universe), but I cannot seem to find out what it actually says, or how it reasons.

Can someone try to clearly explain it?

The CTMU states that the universe is a "computational" system, i.e. is like a computer. In a similar way, the universe generates its own information, expressed through all objects in the universe. But there is no pre-existing program for it to function like a computer, so it 'programs itself,' in a process called telic recursion. For this programming to happen, the universe itself is treated as a conscious entity.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 2:57:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
This is a good article on it (http://www.megafoundation.org...).
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 3:00:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/4/2015 2:55:02 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 8/3/2015 4:23:25 PM, Philocat wrote:
I've heard of CTMU (cognitive-theoretic-model-of-the-universe), but I cannot seem to find out what it actually says, or how it reasons.

Can someone try to clearly explain it?

The CTMU states that the universe is a "computational" system, i.e. is like a computer. In a similar way, the universe generates its own information, expressed through all objects in the universe. But there is no pre-existing program for it to function like a computer, so it 'programs itself,' in a process called telic recursion. For this programming to happen, the universe itself is treated as a conscious entity.

Hmm.. Okay... What argument is used to reach this conclusion? Or is just an abstract hypothesis?
tejretics
Posts: 6,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 3:05:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/4/2015 3:00:54 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 8/4/2015 2:55:02 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 8/3/2015 4:23:25 PM, Philocat wrote:
I've heard of CTMU (cognitive-theoretic-model-of-the-universe), but I cannot seem to find out what it actually says, or how it reasons.

Can someone try to clearly explain it?

The CTMU states that the universe is a "computational" system, i.e. is like a computer. In a similar way, the universe generates its own information, expressed through all objects in the universe. But there is no pre-existing program for it to function like a computer, so it 'programs itself,' in a process called telic recursion. For this programming to happen, the universe itself is treated as a conscious entity.

Hmm.. Okay... What argument is used to reach this conclusion? Or is just an abstract hypothesis?

Supporters of the CTMU hold that reality is self-deterministic -- it determines its own functions -- so telic recursion is the only form of causation which doesn't depend on pre-existing informational structures, so it's the best explanation.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 3:06:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
http://ctmucommunity.org...

Those people try to explain the entire theory.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 6:44:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Distilled to a single sentence, the CTMU is what must inevitably happen when self-containment is taken to its logical conclusion.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2015 9:52:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/3/2015 4:23:25 PM, Philocat wrote:
I've heard of CTMU (cognitive-theoretic-model-of-the-universe), but I cannot seem to find out what it actually says, or how it reasons.

Can someone try to clearly explain it?

CTMU is a big pile of bullsh*t founded on the idea that something can be in a causal relationship with itself. The universe 'actualises' itself, i.e. the cause of the universe is the universe, which of course must exist prior to it causing anything, let alone its own existence.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2015 10:47:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/8/2015 9:52:39 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 8/3/2015 4:23:25 PM, Philocat wrote:
I've heard of CTMU (cognitive-theoretic-model-of-the-universe), but I cannot seem to find out what it actually says, or how it reasons.

Can someone try to clearly explain it?

CTMU is a big pile of bullsh*t founded on the idea that something can be in a causal relationship with itself. The universe 'actualises' itself, i.e. the cause of the universe is the universe, which of course must exist prior to it causing anything, let alone its own existence.

The universe does not have to exist "prior" to it causing itself. The cause just needs to be recognizable as something that exists according to itself, which means the cause must be intrinsically self-defining and self-selective. Absent any universe, there is no constraint to prevent this from happening. There are no real rules until this reflexive relationship has been established.

You have a hard time accepting this because when you try to imagine what it would "look like", you inevitably fail. This is because the cause is not a temporal, physical operation, but a logical one.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2015 12:46:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/8/2015 10:47:18 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/8/2015 9:52:39 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 8/3/2015 4:23:25 PM, Philocat wrote:
I've heard of CTMU (cognitive-theoretic-model-of-the-universe), but I cannot seem to find out what it actually says, or how it reasons.

Can someone try to clearly explain it?

CTMU is a big pile of bullsh*t founded on the idea that something can be in a causal relationship with itself. The universe 'actualises' itself, i.e. the cause of the universe is the universe, which of course must exist prior to it causing anything, let alone its own existence.

The universe does not have to exist "prior" to it causing itself. The cause just needs to be recognizable as something that exists according to itself, which means the cause must be intrinsically self-defining and self-selective. Absent any universe, there is no constraint to prevent this from happening. There are no real rules until this reflexive relationship has been established.

You have a hard time accepting this because when you try to imagine what it would "look like", you inevitably fail. This is because the cause is not a temporal, physical operation, but a logical one.
"Not temporal physical.....but a logical one"
God is not temporal
God is not physical
Whether God is logical is debatable, I find most people merely misinterpret arguments they use to try and expose god or aspects of god as being illogical. A popularly held misunderstanding of a paradox in regards to Gods omnipotence is a fallacy of composition identified as the rock scenario. Goes like this as I assume you've heard, it uses thinly veiled semantics at an attempt to differentiate "lift" from "make"...
Can God make a rock so heavy God cannot lift it.?.....The inherent misunderstanding in this attempt of exposing something is the inability for people to properly apply what is included in the ability to "make" the rock. NASA refers to rockets as needing to liftoff the earth to get to the moon. Agreed? Well if God can make a rock in California of infinite weight, then God can also "unmake" said rock. Then God can make exact same rock on the moon, By definition the rock has been lifted off the Earth and put on the moon. This omnipotent paradox isn't a paradox at all. Its semantics that hides a contradiction based in composition..
I find CMTU as an example of semantics which uses an equivocation fallacy in regards to information, what constitutes information, and what also contradicts information theory. That's just my layman's opinion though. Here's a rather good link if someone hasn't already posted it.
http://www.thephysicsforum.com...
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2015 4:32:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/8/2015 9:52:39 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 8/3/2015 4:23:25 PM, Philocat wrote:
I've heard of CTMU (cognitive-theoretic-model-of-the-universe), but I cannot seem to find out what it actually says, or how it reasons.

Can someone try to clearly explain it?

CTMU is a big pile of bullsh*t founded on the idea that something can be in a causal relationship with itself. The universe 'actualises' itself, i.e. the cause of the universe is the universe, which of course must exist prior to it causing anything, let alone its own existence.
"And others say even that the external world is the work of our organs? But then our body, as a part of this external world, would be the work of our organs! But then our organs themselves would be the work of our organs! It seems to me that this is a complete REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM, if the conception CAUSA SUI is something fundamentally absurd. Consequently, the external world is NOT the work of our organs"? "

~ Nietzsche
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2015 9:52:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/8/2015 9:52:39 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 8/3/2015 4:23:25 PM, Philocat wrote:
I've heard of CTMU (cognitive-theoretic-model-of-the-universe), but I cannot seem to find out what it actually says, or how it reasons.

Can someone try to clearly explain it?

CTMU is a big pile of bullsh*t founded on the idea that something can be in a causal relationship with itself. The universe 'actualises' itself, i.e. the cause of the universe is the universe, which of course must exist prior to it causing anything, let alone its own existence.

Langan does a good job of explaining:

A: You're asking three distinct but related questions about cosmology: how, when and as what did the universe self-create?

The universe can be described as a cybernetic system in which freedom and constraint are counterbalanced. The constraints function as structure; thus, the laws of physics are constraints which define the structure of spacetime, whereas freedom is that which is bound or logically quantified by the constraints in question. Now, since there is no real time scale external to reality, there is no extrinsic point in time at which the moment of creation can be located, and this invalidates phrases like "before reality existed" and "when reality created itself". So rather than asking "when" the universe came to be, or what existed "before" the universe was born, we must instead ask "what would remain if the structural constraints defining the real universe were regressively suspended?" First, time would gradually disappear, eliminating the "when" question entirely. And once time disappears completely, what remains is the answer to the "what" question: a realm of boundless potential characterized by a total lack of real constraint. In other words, the real universe timelessly emerges from a background of logically unquantified potential to which the concepts of space and time simply do not apply.

Now let's attend to your "how" question. Within a realm of unbound potential like the one from which the universe emerges, everything is possible, and this implies that "everything exists" in the sense of possibility. Some possibilities are self-inconsistent and therefore ontological dead ends; they extinguish themselves in the very attempt to emerge into actuality. But other possibilities are self-consistent and potentially self-configuring by internally defined evolutionary processes. That is, they predicate their own emergence according to their own internal logics, providing their own means and answering their own "hows". These possibilities, which are completely self-contained not only with respect to how, what, and when, but why, have a common structure called SCSPL (Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language). An SCSPL answers its own "why?" question with something called teleology; where SCSPL is "God" to whatever exists within it, teleology amounts to the "Will of God".
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2015 10:27:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/9/2015 4:32:48 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 8/8/2015 9:52:39 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 8/3/2015 4:23:25 PM, Philocat wrote:
I've heard of CTMU (cognitive-theoretic-model-of-the-universe), but I cannot seem to find out what it actually says, or how it reasons.

Can someone try to clearly explain it?

CTMU is a big pile of bullsh*t founded on the idea that something can be in a causal relationship with itself. The universe 'actualises' itself, i.e. the cause of the universe is the universe, which of course must exist prior to it causing anything, let alone its own existence.

"And others say even that the external world is the work of our organs? But then our body, as a part of this external world, would be the work of our organs! But then our organs themselves would be the work of our organs! It seems to me that this is a complete REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM, if the conception CAUSA SUI is something fundamentally absurd. Consequently, the external world is NOT the work of our organs"? "

~ Nietzsche

The CTMU doesn't assume that the external world is the "work of our organs", whatever that's supposed to mean. If we weren't there to conceive of it, reality would still exist. The CTMU just asserts that reality is mental to the extent that it conforms to its description.

The M=R property takes up where the Principle of Linguistic Reducibility leaves off in eliminating
the distinction between theory and universe. By its light, the theoretical description of reality by
human beings contained in reality amounts to reality describing itself...Whereas most scientific theories are hopefully mapped into or onto the universe across anunbridgeable dualistic gulf, the CTMU is a monic theory of perception that simply eliminates the gulf by tautologically injecting logic in its entirety...By eliminating the theory-universe gulf on the level of cognitive and perceptual syntax, the CTMU admirably fulfills the criterion of theoretic economy"and supertautologically at that.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 9:06:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/8/2015 10:47:18 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/8/2015 9:52:39 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 8/3/2015 4:23:25 PM, Philocat wrote:
I've heard of CTMU (cognitive-theoretic-model-of-the-universe), but I cannot seem to find out what it actually says, or how it reasons.

Can someone try to clearly explain it?

CTMU is a big pile of bullsh*t founded on the idea that something can be in a causal relationship with itself. The universe 'actualises' itself, i.e. the cause of the universe is the universe, which of course must exist prior to it causing anything, let alone its own existence.

The universe does not have to exist "prior" to it causing itself. The cause just needs to be recognizable as something that exists according to itself, which means the cause must be intrinsically self-defining and self-selective. Absent any universe, there is no constraint to prevent this from happening. There are no real rules until this reflexive relationship has been established.

You have a hard time accepting this because when you try to imagine what it would "look like", you inevitably fail. This is because the cause is not a temporal, physical operation, but a logical one.

I have a hard time accepting it because there's no logic behind it. Clearly however you imagine it makes more sense than the sentences you form trying to explain it, because a cause must have an effect, which is impossible without time, and furthermore, cause and effect is clearly an A-B relationship not an A=A, something you clearly forget when you use words like 'self-defining'. For X to define X, X must have some characteristics in order to accomplish this task of 'defining'; however, those characteristics are predicated upon the definition already having been accomplished. If that is not correct, then 'self-defining' is a meaningless phrase since that which could 'self-define' would exist without being 'defined' in the first place.
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 9:12:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 9:06:02 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 8/8/2015 10:47:18 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/8/2015 9:52:39 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 8/3/2015 4:23:25 PM, Philocat wrote:
I've heard of CTMU (cognitive-theoretic-model-of-the-universe), but I cannot seem to find out what it actually says, or how it reasons.

Can someone try to clearly explain it?

CTMU is a big pile of bullsh*t founded on the idea that something can be in a causal relationship with itself. The universe 'actualises' itself, i.e. the cause of the universe is the universe, which of course must exist prior to it causing anything, let alone its own existence.

The universe does not have to exist "prior" to it causing itself. The cause just needs to be recognizable as something that exists according to itself, which means the cause must be intrinsically self-defining and self-selective. Absent any universe, there is no constraint to prevent this from happening. There are no real rules until this reflexive relationship has been established.

You have a hard time accepting this because when you try to imagine what it would "look like", you inevitably fail. This is because the cause is not a temporal, physical operation, but a logical one.

I have a hard time accepting it because there's no logic behind it. Clearly however you imagine it makes more sense than the sentences you form trying to explain it, because a cause must have an effect, which is impossible without time, and furthermore, cause and effect is clearly an A-B relationship not an A=A, something you clearly forget when you use words like 'self-defining'. For X to define X, X must have some characteristics in order to accomplish this task of 'defining'; however, those characteristics are predicated upon the definition already having been accomplished. If that is not correct, then 'self-defining' is a meaningless phrase since that which could 'self-define' would exist without being 'defined' in the first place.

He's essentially doing what existentialists do with people and saying that the nature of the universe is an entity which sets the nature of the universe, which makes no causal sense, considering that that statement in itself presupposes a "nature of the universe" apart from the nature the universe defines for itself, thus defeating his point.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 5:43:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 9:06:02 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 8/8/2015 10:47:18 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/8/2015 9:52:39 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 8/3/2015 4:23:25 PM, Philocat wrote:
I've heard of CTMU (cognitive-theoretic-model-of-the-universe), but I cannot seem to find out what it actually says, or how it reasons.

Can someone try to clearly explain it?

CTMU is a big pile of bullsh*t founded on the idea that something can be in a causal relationship with itself. The universe 'actualises' itself, i.e. the cause of the universe is the universe, which of course must exist prior to it causing anything, let alone its own existence.

The universe does not have to exist "prior" to it causing itself. The cause just needs to be recognizable as something that exists according to itself, which means the cause must be intrinsically self-defining and self-selective. Absent any universe, there is no constraint to prevent this from happening. There are no real rules until this reflexive relationship has been established.

You have a hard time accepting this because when you try to imagine what it would "look like", you inevitably fail. This is because the cause is not a temporal, physical operation, but a logical one.

I have a hard time accepting it because there's no logic behind it. Clearly however you imagine it makes more sense than the sentences you form trying to explain it, because a cause must have an effect, which is impossible without time, and furthermore, cause and effect is clearly an A-B relationship not an A=A, something you clearly forget when you use words like 'self-defining'.

In the sense I'm using the term, "cause" is synonymous with "explanation". Something's explanation does not have to exist within time, otherwise all of mathematics would be inexplicable.

For X to define X, X must have some characteristics in order to accomplish this task of 'defining'; however, those characteristics are predicated upon the definition already having been accomplished.

This is why everything must happen simultaneously, and why only possibilities with an intrinsic ability to define and maintain their own existences are capable of actualizing. In other words, in order for X to actualize, "X" must represent a potential that defines its own ability to define itself. Again, this doesn't take place within time, so there's no "chicken and egg" problem to deal with.

If that is not correct, then 'self-defining' is a meaningless phrase since that which could 'self-define' would exist without being 'defined' in the first place.
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 5:44:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/4/2015 2:55:02 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 8/3/2015 4:23:25 PM, Philocat wrote:
I've heard of CTMU (cognitive-theoretic-model-of-the-universe), but I cannot seem to find out what it actually says, or how it reasons.

Can someone try to clearly explain it?

The CTMU states that the universe is a "computational" system, i.e. is like a computer. In a similar way, the universe generates its own information, expressed through all objects in the universe. But there is no pre-existing program for it to function like a computer, so it 'programs itself,' in a process called telic recursion. For this programming to happen, the universe itself is treated as a conscious entity.

That's so weird.
Suh dude

"Because we all know who the most important snowflake in the wasteland is... It's YOU, champ! You're a special snowflake." -Vaarka, 01:30 in the hangouts

"Screw laying siege to Korea. That usually takes an hour or so." -Vaarka

"Crap, what is my religion again?" -Vaarka

I'm Rick Harrison and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss, and in 23 years I've learned one thing. You never know what is gonna come through that door.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2015 8:15:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 5:43:11 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

Dyl I hope you're studying Philosophy at college. Though knowing you you're probably teaching yourself Theology at home.

In the sense I'm using the term, "cause" is synonymous with "explanation". Something's explanation does not have to exist within time, otherwise all of mathematics would be inexplicable.

Interesting, but one of the more superficial problems of that seems to be that an explanation doesn't seem necessary for existence, even in your framework, which is presumably that a meaning is necessary for existence. An explanation is just a meaning given in a certain way.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2015 8:22:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 5:43:11 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
For X to define X, X must have some characteristics in order to accomplish this task of 'defining'; however, those characteristics are predicated upon the definition already having been accomplished.

This is why everything must happen simultaneously, and why only possibilities with an intrinsic ability to define and maintain their own existences are capable of actualizing. In other words, in order for X to actualize, "X" must represent a potential that defines its own ability to define itself. Again, this doesn't take place within time, so there's no "chicken and egg" problem to deal with.

I don't really know how you mean for something to happen 'outside of time'. If there is a potential which actualises into something, then there must have been at least two distinct time periods in which it was just a potential and another in which it had actualised. Furthermore it is unclear why 'the potential for existence' is not regarded as something that itself exists, making it simply 'existence in the first place.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2015 8:43:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/13/2015 8:15:34 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 8/12/2015 5:43:11 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

Dyl I hope you're studying Philosophy at college. Though knowing you you're probably teaching yourself Theology at home.

In the sense I'm using the term, "cause" is synonymous with "explanation". Something's explanation does not have to exist within time, otherwise all of mathematics would be inexplicable.

Interesting, but one of the more superficial problems of that seems to be that an explanation doesn't seem necessary for existence, even in your framework, which is presumably that a meaning is necessary for existence. An explanation is just a meaning given in a certain way.

In order for something to exist, its existence must be decidable i.e., its existence must be absolutely ruled out. The existence of an inexplicable universe is undecidable, so it cannot exist in any true sense.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2015 8:47:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/13/2015 8:22:05 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 8/12/2015 5:43:11 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
For X to define X, X must have some characteristics in order to accomplish this task of 'defining'; however, those characteristics are predicated upon the definition already having been accomplished.

This is why everything must happen simultaneously, and why only possibilities with an intrinsic ability to define and maintain their own existences are capable of actualizing. In other words, in order for X to actualize, "X" must represent a potential that defines its own ability to define itself. Again, this doesn't take place within time, so there's no "chicken and egg" problem to deal with.

I don't really know how you mean for something to happen 'outside of time'. If there is a potential which actualises into something, then there must have been at least two distinct time periods in which it was just a potential and another in which it had actualised.

The potential of reality was never non-actualized in any real sense.

Furthermore it is unclear why 'the potential for existence' is not regarded as something that itself exists, making it simply 'existence in the first place.

The potential for existence is intrinsically self-actualizing, so it is indeed real and always was real.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2015 5:03:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/13/2015 8:43:40 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/13/2015 8:15:34 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 8/12/2015 5:43:11 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

Dyl I hope you're studying Philosophy at college. Though knowing you you're probably teaching yourself Theology at home.

In the sense I'm using the term, "cause" is synonymous with "explanation". Something's explanation does not have to exist within time, otherwise all of mathematics would be inexplicable.

Interesting, but one of the more superficial problems of that seems to be that an explanation doesn't seem necessary for existence, even in your framework, which is presumably that a meaning is necessary for existence. An explanation is just a meaning given in a certain way.

In order for something to exist, its existence must be decidable i.e., its existence must be absolutely ruled out.

This doesn't make any sense to me. The prerequisite to existence is that its existence must be decidable? Existence then is decided by that which does not exist. Also, as far as I'm aware if something's existence is ruled out, it has been decided not to exist..?

The existence of an inexplicable universe is undecidable, so it cannot exist in any true sense.

Why would not being able to explain something to someone have any meaning regarding its existence?
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2015 5:04:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/13/2015 8:47:42 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/13/2015 8:22:05 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 8/12/2015 5:43:11 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
For X to define X, X must have some characteristics in order to accomplish this task of 'defining'; however, those characteristics are predicated upon the definition already having been accomplished.

This is why everything must happen simultaneously, and why only possibilities with an intrinsic ability to define and maintain their own existences are capable of actualizing. In other words, in order for X to actualize, "X" must represent a potential that defines its own ability to define itself. Again, this doesn't take place within time, so there's no "chicken and egg" problem to deal with.

I don't really know how you mean for something to happen 'outside of time'. If there is a potential which actualises into something, then there must have been at least two distinct time periods in which it was just a potential and another in which it had actualised.

The potential of reality was never non-actualized in any real sense.

Then why did it really need actualising in the first place?

Furthermore it is unclear why 'the potential for existence' is not regarded as something that itself exists, making it simply 'existence in the first place.

The potential for existence is intrinsically self-actualizing, so it is indeed real and always was real.

I can't burn something that was always burnt.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2015 5:39:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/14/2015 5:03:23 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 8/13/2015 8:43:40 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/13/2015 8:15:34 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 8/12/2015 5:43:11 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

Dyl I hope you're studying Philosophy at college. Though knowing you you're probably teaching yourself Theology at home.

In the sense I'm using the term, "cause" is synonymous with "explanation". Something's explanation does not have to exist within time, otherwise all of mathematics would be inexplicable.

Interesting, but one of the more superficial problems of that seems to be that an explanation doesn't seem necessary for existence, even in your framework, which is presumably that a meaning is necessary for existence. An explanation is just a meaning given in a certain way.

In order for something to exist, its existence must be decidable i.e., its existence must be absolutely ruled out.

This doesn't make any sense to me. The prerequisite to existence is that its existence must be decidable? Existence then is decided by that which does not exist.

The point is that existence is self-explaining, not that it is explained by non-existence.

Also, as far as I'm aware if something's existence is ruled out, it has been decided not to exist..?

I misspoke. I meant to say "Its non-existence must be absolutely ruled out."


The existence of an inexplicable universe is undecidable, so it cannot exist in any true sense.

Why would not being able to explain something to someone have any meaning regarding its existence?

The point is that if you cannot explain something to someone, it's because you are ignorant, not because the thing in question lacks an explanation. If something exists, its existence has been selected for in a real way. So to say it has no explanation is like saying "that which has been selected for has not been selected for".
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2015 5:46:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/14/2015 5:04:34 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 8/13/2015 8:47:42 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/13/2015 8:22:05 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 8/12/2015 5:43:11 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
For X to define X, X must have some characteristics in order to accomplish this task of 'defining'; however, those characteristics are predicated upon the definition already having been accomplished.

This is why everything must happen simultaneously, and why only possibilities with an intrinsic ability to define and maintain their own existences are capable of actualizing. In other words, in order for X to actualize, "X" must represent a potential that defines its own ability to define itself. Again, this doesn't take place within time, so there's no "chicken and egg" problem to deal with.

I don't really know how you mean for something to happen 'outside of time'. If there is a potential which actualises into something, then there must have been at least two distinct time periods in which it was just a potential and another in which it had actualised.

The potential of reality was never non-actualized in any real sense.

Then why did it really need actualising in the first place?

Because the only reason its actualization has always been real is that "reality" is synonymous with what it actualizes.

Furthermore it is unclear why 'the potential for existence' is not regarded as something that itself exists, making it simply 'existence in the first place.

The potential for existence is intrinsically self-actualizing, so it is indeed real and always was real.

I can't burn something that was always burnt.

The self-actualization of reality is not a temporal event. Rather, the actualization of reality is simply attributable to reality.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2015 8:21:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/14/2015 5:46:21 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/14/2015 5:04:34 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 8/13/2015 8:47:42 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/13/2015 8:22:05 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 8/12/2015 5:43:11 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
For X to define X, X must have some characteristics in order to accomplish this task of 'defining'; however, those characteristics are predicated upon the definition already having been accomplished.

This is why everything must happen simultaneously, and why only possibilities with an intrinsic ability to define and maintain their own existences are capable of actualizing. In other words, in order for X to actualize, "X" must represent a potential that defines its own ability to define itself. Again, this doesn't take place within time, so there's no "chicken and egg" problem to deal with.

I don't really know how you mean for something to happen 'outside of time'. If there is a potential which actualises into something, then there must have been at least two distinct time periods in which it was just a potential and another in which it had actualised.

The potential of reality was never non-actualized in any real sense.

Then why did it really need actualising in the first place?

Because the only reason its actualization has always been real is that "reality" is synonymous with what it actualizes.

Furthermore it is unclear why 'the potential for existence' is not regarded as something that itself exists, making it simply 'existence in the first place.

The potential for existence is intrinsically self-actualizing, so it is indeed real and always was real.

I can't burn something that was always burnt.

The self-actualization of reality is not a temporal event. Rather, the actualization of reality is simply attributable to reality.

You're starting to make sense :)
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2015 8:41:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Reality is, always was, and always will be what is real.

Reality is, then, reality.

Who knew?
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2015 11:09:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/14/2015 8:41:37 PM, kp98 wrote:
Reality is, always was, and always will be what is real.

Reality is, then, reality.

Who knew?

Yeah, seriously... Langan spends 50 pages defending the idea that reality is how it is because reality is how it is.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2015 11:23:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/14/2015 8:41:37 PM, kp98 wrote:
Reality is, always was, and always will be what is real.

Reality is, then, reality.

Who knew?

I merely pointed this out in conjunction with other, more controversial claims. Please refrain from misrepresentation, thanks.