Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

Trans-World Identity

bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2013 11:05:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Can anyone defend it? It seems necessary for the Ontological Argument as generally formulated these days.

To me, it seems that the Ontological Argument only proves that in those worlds in which a god is necessary, god exists. It doesn't give a reason besides definition to conclude that god is necessary in all universes. Those who support the argument try to say that if god exists in any universe/world, he must by definition exist in all worlds, even in worlds that are not internally logically inconsistent without god.

Allowing Trans-World Identity in this way seems to, essentially, demolish "possible world" philosophy altogether, as it makes them all linked by a common denominator which is not just a twin, but the same thing. In no other context is this allowed; all other necessities are limited necessities, which require a certain set of presuppositions. In every universe in which the laws of physics are the same, I exist on the planet, it is raining, I have to go outside, and I don't have an umbrella or other deflector, I will get wet. It is necessary in all these universes that I get wet. But there is no trans-world identity here, and the necessity relies on a long series of things which must be identical for the necessity to hold true.

By contrast, the OA seems to say "There is a universe which is not internally inconsistent which could have an MGB as I have defined it. Therefore, there is a universe in which this MGB I have defined exists. However, by existing, the MGB must also exist in all other universes. Yet, there is a universe which is not internally inconsistent which could not have an MGB. The only way that universe becomes impossible is with transworld identity, which makes "internally consistent" no longer the definition of "possible world", but rather "consistent with all other universes".
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2013 11:53:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Isn't this supposed to be in philosophy ?

I will not answer the question but I just want to ask why they say if God exist IN one universe , and they don't say if God exists FOR a universe? what make them think that if he exists , he should be IN ?
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2013 11:55:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm asking this because in my religion I believe that God is above the universe on his throne. that can not be located except by saying he is above.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2013 11:58:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/26/2013 11:05:41 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Can anyone defend it? It seems necessary for the Ontological Argument as generally formulated these days.

To me, it seems that the Ontological Argument only proves that in those worlds in which a god is necessary, god exists. It doesn't give a reason besides definition to conclude that god is necessary in all universes. Those who support the argument try to say that if god exists in any universe/world, he must by definition exist in all worlds, even in worlds that are not internally logically inconsistent without god.

Allowing Trans-World Identity in this way seems to, essentially, demolish "possible world" philosophy altogether, as it makes them all linked by a common denominator which is not just a twin, but the same thing. In no other context is this allowed; all other necessities are limited necessities, which require a certain set of presuppositions. In every universe in which the laws of physics are the same, I exist on the planet, it is raining, I have to go outside, and I don't have an umbrella or other deflector, I will get wet. It is necessary in all these universes that I get wet. But there is no trans-world identity here, and the necessity relies on a long series of things which must be identical for the necessity to hold true.

By contrast, the OA seems to say "There is a universe which is not internally inconsistent which could have an MGB as I have defined it. Therefore, there is a universe in which this MGB I have defined exists. However, by existing, the MGB must also exist in all other universes. Yet, there is a universe which is not internally inconsistent which could not have an MGB. The only way that universe becomes impossible is with transworld identity, which makes "internally consistent" no longer the definition of "possible world", but rather "consistent with all other universes".

Ya, this is the problem. A "MGB" being possible can only be shown if one can demonstrate that non-sentient worlds are impossible. Non-sentient worlds being possible can only be shown if one can demonstrate a MGB impossible. Who gets the leg up?
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2013 12:40:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/26/2013 11:53:45 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
Isn't this supposed to be in philosophy ?

You're probably right.

I will not answer the question but I just want to ask why they say if God exist IN one universe , and they don't say if God exists FOR a universe? what make them think that if he exists , he should be IN ?

Eh, it's a semantics thing. I can see why it bothers you, but I don't think there's more to it than just how things are normally phrased.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
PureX
Posts: 1,533
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2013 1:28:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
So a "trans-world identity" is what is commonly referred to as "god", or inter-stellar space aliens, or what?
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2013 1:38:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/26/2013 1:28:47 PM, PureX wrote:
So a "trans-world identity" is what is commonly referred to as "god", or inter-stellar space aliens, or what?

No, a trans-world identity is the ability of a thing to be existent in more than one universe simultaneously.

A "Maximally Great Being", it is said, necessarily exists in all universes if it exists in any.

With "possible world" philosophy, anything which can possibly exist, does in a "possible world".

The OA says that if an MGB is possible in any universe, it therefore exists in all universes by definition.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2013 1:47:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/26/2013 11:05:41 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Can anyone defend it?

"If I had eaten a better breakfast, I wouldn't be this hungry now."

If we translate that into possible-world-speak, it comes out something like this:

"There is a possible world in which I ate a better breakfast. In that world, I'm not this hungry."

It gets complex after that. But that initial move involves transworld identity, and it isn't a bogus move.
PureX
Posts: 1,533
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2013 1:48:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/26/2013 1:38:07 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/26/2013 1:28:47 PM, PureX wrote:
So a "trans-world identity" is what is commonly referred to as "god", or inter-stellar space aliens, or what?

No, a trans-world identity is the ability of a thing to be existent in more than one universe simultaneously.

A "Maximally Great Being", it is said, necessarily exists in all universes if it exists in any.

With "possible world" philosophy, anything which can possibly exist, does in a "possible world".

The OA says that if an MGB is possible in any universe, it therefore exists in all universes by definition.

Well, if we are already imagining a multi-universe existence, then I see no reason that we couldn't also imagine a tans-world identity to exist within them all. Right?
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2013 1:50:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/26/2013 1:48:48 PM, PureX wrote:
At 4/26/2013 1:38:07 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/26/2013 1:28:47 PM, PureX wrote:
So a "trans-world identity" is what is commonly referred to as "god", or inter-stellar space aliens, or what?

No, a trans-world identity is the ability of a thing to be existent in more than one universe simultaneously.

A "Maximally Great Being", it is said, necessarily exists in all universes if it exists in any.

With "possible world" philosophy, anything which can possibly exist, does in a "possible world".

The OA says that if an MGB is possible in any universe, it therefore exists in all universes by definition.

Well, if we are already imagining a multi-universe existence, then I see no reason that we couldn't also imagine a tans-world identity to exist within them all. Right?

We can imagine anything we'd like. But we're looking for logical consistency, and it is lacking in a total trans-world identity of the type I was outlining.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2013 2:04:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/26/2013 1:47:02 PM, wiploc wrote:
At 4/26/2013 11:05:41 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Can anyone defend it?

"If I had eaten a better breakfast, I wouldn't be this hungry now."

If we translate that into possible-world-speak, it comes out something like this:

"There is a possible world in which I ate a better breakfast. In that world, I'm not this hungry."

It gets complex after that. But that initial move involves transworld identity, and it isn't a bogus move.

How does that involve transworld identity? Just in that the "I" is the same? Because it's not literally the same, the I that I am is hungry.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
PureX
Posts: 1,533
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2013 3:03:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/26/2013 1:50:00 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/26/2013 1:48:48 PM, PureX wrote:
At 4/26/2013 1:38:07 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/26/2013 1:28:47 PM, PureX wrote:
So a "trans-world identity" is what is commonly referred to as "god", or inter-stellar space aliens, or what?

No, a trans-world identity is the ability of a thing to be existent in more than one universe simultaneously.

A "Maximally Great Being", it is said, necessarily exists in all universes if it exists in any.

With "possible world" philosophy, anything which can possibly exist, does in a "possible world".

The OA says that if an MGB is possible in any universe, it therefore exists in all universes by definition.

Well, if we are already imagining a multi-universe existence, then I see no reason that we couldn't also imagine a tans-world identity to exist within them all. Right?

We can imagine anything we'd like. But we're looking for logical consistency, and it is lacking in a total trans-world identity of the type I was outlining.

Hmmm. Not necessarily. There would have to be some unifying force or expression connecting all those universes together, by origin if nothing else. If such exists, then it is already "trans worldly". And if such doesn't exist, how can it not?
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2013 4:05:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/26/2013 2:04:43 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/26/2013 1:47:02 PM, wiploc wrote:
At 4/26/2013 11:05:41 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Can anyone defend it?

"If I had eaten a better breakfast, I wouldn't be this hungry now."

If we translate that into possible-world-speak, it comes out something like this:

"There is a possible world in which I ate a better breakfast. In that world, I'm not this hungry."

It gets complex after that. But that initial move involves transworld identity, and it isn't a bogus move.

How does that involve transworld identity? Just in that the "I" is the same? Because it's not literally the same, the I that I am is hungry.

I'm on your side, in that I don't think trans-world identity really works out the way Plantinga needs it to. But, still, I don't think it can be discounted entirely.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2013 4:06:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/26/2013 4:05:23 PM, wiploc wrote:

I'm on your side, in that I don't think trans-world identity really works out the way Plantinga needs it to. But, still, I don't think it can be discounted entirely.

Yeah; I think it's being used in more than one way, one as a hop-skip to the other. The kind you were describing does not seem objectionable.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2013 4:15:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/26/2013 1:47:02 PM, wiploc wrote:
"There is a possible world in which I ate a better breakfast. In that world, I'm not this hungry."

It gets complex after that. But that initial move involves transworld identity, and it isn't a bogus move.

It's quite an assertion in truth..

Possible in what fashion???

for you, that person that wishes he wasn't so hungry, are Thoroughly a part of this, causally linked, interconnected world.

Who's to say that there could be a world in which "you" exist, but had a good breakfast? In this world you're causally, inextricably, linked to a lack of a good breakfast.... For it would seem that the nature of this world causally demands that you not have a good breakfast... Who's to say that the world could be different?

I'm not aware of just what has made the world exist as it does... But perhaps it's not possible that things/the Universe could, possibly, be different.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2013 4:22:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/26/2013 4:15:18 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 4/26/2013 1:47:02 PM, wiploc wrote:
"There is a possible world in which I ate a better breakfast. In that world, I'm not this hungry."

Also... what's a possible world that you're affirming it's actual existence?

If possible is actual than why not just say "there is a world".

and I can't understand how "There is" means anything but "There exists" or "____ is Actual"

So, if you want to suggest it's merely possible, instead of actual, Then don't say that that possible world Exists... say it's Possible that such a world exists.

And, like I said, even the claim that such a world is possible is a claim that outruns any source of support we might look to.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2013 4:25:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/26/2013 4:15:18 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 4/26/2013 1:47:02 PM, wiploc wrote:
"There is a possible world in which I ate a better breakfast. In that world, I'm not this hungry."

It gets complex after that. But that initial move involves transworld identity, and it isn't a bogus move.

It's quite an assertion in truth..

Possible in what fashion???

for you, that person that wishes he wasn't so hungry, are Thoroughly a part of this, causally linked, interconnected world.

Who's to say that there could be a world in which "you" exist, but had a good breakfast? In this world you're causally, inextricably, linked to a lack of a good breakfast.... For it would seem that the nature of this world causally demands that you not have a good breakfast... Who's to say that the world could be different?

I'm not aware of just what has made the world exist as it does... But perhaps it's not possible that things/the Universe could, possibly, be different.

"I'm not aware of just what has made the world exist as it does... But perhaps it's not possible that things/the Universe could, possibly, be different."

This is a good point, and is another problem with the Modal Ontological Argument. If determinism is true for example, then there is no actual possibility that the universe could have been different than it is now. Basically, there could be things that make a certain world impossible, that we don't even know about. Thus, people just blindly accept a world as "possible" based on ignorance to it's negation. What if there is a possible world with non-sentient beings? This would negate the possibility of a necessarily existing, sentient being.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2013 4:30:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/26/2013 1:47:02 PM, wiploc wrote:
"There is a possible world..."

Really? what's it made of? In what fashion is it? In what manner does it exist?

It's clearer and better and more sensible to say "Blah Blah is a possibility"

and saying what is and isn't Possible on such a scale is just the height of unsupportable silliness.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2013 4:36:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Well, I think you guys are undercutting the entire concept of "possible world" discourse.

In the context of the philosophical "possible world", a world is possible as long as there are no logical inconsistencies in its existence.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Which is not to say I necessarily agree with the concept, but I was working within the framework of the concept.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2013 4:52:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/26/2013 4:22:19 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 4/26/2013 4:15:18 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 4/26/2013 1:47:02 PM, wiploc wrote:
"There is a possible world in which I ate a better breakfast. In that world, I'm not this hungry."

Also... what's a possible world that you're affirming it's actual existence?

I'm not affirming any such thing. It's a way of thinking and talking about counterfactuals. If you want to discuss what would have happened if Hitler had won WWII, you can do so in terms of possible worlds. But nobody is asserting that there is someplace in which Hitler actually did win WWII.

If possible is actual than why not just say "there is a world".

Only one of the possible worlds is actual. We call that one "Kronos," or, "the actual world."

and I can't understand how "There is" means anything but "There exists" or "____ is Actual"

Then don't speak in possible-world-talk. I'm not very fluent in it myself.

So, if you want to suggest it's merely possible, instead of actual, Then don't say that that possible world Exists... say it's Possible that such a world exists.

Why don't you go tell the French not to apply masculine and feminine forms of words to things that don't have gender.

And, like I said, even the claim that such a world is possible is a claim that outruns any source of support we might look to.

Any world without contradiction is a possible world. If it's not impossible, it's possible.
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2013 4:55:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/26/2013 4:30:36 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
It's clearer and better and more sensible to say "Blah Blah is a possibility"

That doesn't serve my purpose when my purpose is to refute Plantinga. But you are definitely free to avoid possible-world-speak.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2013 4:57:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/26/2013 1:47:02 PM, wiploc wrote:
"There is a possible world..."

the only thing this can really say, when it's unpacked, is:
"Logic, in and of itself, does not rule out things being ______ way"

That being the case, I'd like to see the modal ontological argument does given such a translation.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2013 12:39:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/26/2013 4:57:16 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 4/26/2013 1:47:02 PM, wiploc wrote:
"There is a possible world..."

the only thing this can really say, when it's unpacked, is:
"Logic, in and of itself, does not rule out things being ______ way"

That being the case, I'd like to see the modal ontological argument does given such a translation.

There are possible worlds in which things are _____ way.