Total Posts:128|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

If Solipsism Is Metaphyscally Possible...

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,356
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2017 6:21:49 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
....Then Physicalism is false and a Maximally Great Being does not exist.

Physicalism would be false because if A is B, then whatever is true for A is true for B (Indescernability of Identicals). If Solpsism is possible then the following proposition is true:

"In some possible world W, mind exists while nothing physical exists"

However, there is no possible world in which something physical exists while nothing physical exists (that would be a contradiction).

Therefore if Solipsism is metaphysically possible, then there is something true about the mind in the actual world that is not true of anything physical:

"Possibly exists while nothing physical exists"

Since the mind would have a modal property that nothing physical could possibly have, then the mind could not be anything physical assuming Solipsism is possible.

A Maximally Great Being (or God) could not exist if Solipsism is metaphysically possible because God can only exist if he exists in every possible world. However, if there is a possible world in which I am a Solipsistic entity, then there is a possible world in which God does not exist (the possible world in which only my mind exists).

So if Solipsism is metaphysically possible, then not only is Physicalism false but a Maximally Great Being cannot exist.
illegalcombat
Posts: 838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2017 10:13:24 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 1/10/2017 6:21:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
....Then Physicalism is false and a Maximally Great Being does not exist.

Physicalism would be false because if A is B, then whatever is true for A is true for B (Indescernability of Identicals). If Solpsism is possible then the following proposition is true:

"In some possible world W, mind exists while nothing physical exists"

However, there is no possible world in which something physical exists while nothing physical exists (that would be a contradiction).

Therefore if Solipsism is metaphysically possible, then there is something true about the mind in the actual world that is not true of anything physical:

"Possibly exists while nothing physical exists"

Since the mind would have a modal property that nothing physical could possibly have, then the mind could not be anything physical assuming Solipsism is possible.

A Maximally Great Being (or God) could not exist if Solipsism is metaphysically possible because God can only exist if he exists in every possible world. However, if there is a possible world in which I am a Solipsistic entity, then there is a possible world in which God does not exist (the possible world in which only my mind exists).

So if Solipsism is metaphysically possible, then not only is Physicalism false but a Maximally Great Being cannot exist.

I have a question, well more of a challenge to Monistic Idealist. I understand this to mean you reject there is no physical reality.

When a person gets put in prison for rape, we don't send them to jail cause he "thought" about rape, but rather committed the act of rape........PHYSICALLY.

There is no crime in just thinking about rapeing some one, but if you reject a physical reality, then physical acts such as rape can NOT occur, which means we have people in prison for committing crimes which are impossible to do in the first place, physical acts of various crimes, eg rape.

Yeah comment on that.
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 8,513
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2017 10:46:17 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 1/10/2017 6:21:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
....Then Physicalism is false and a Maximally Great Being does not exist.

Physicalism would be false because if A is B, then whatever is true for A is true for B (Indescernability of Identicals). If Solpsism is possible then the following proposition is true:

"In some possible world W, mind exists while nothing physical exists"

However, there is no possible world in which something physical exists while nothing physical exists (that would be a contradiction).

Therefore if Solipsism is metaphysically possible, then there is something true about the mind in the actual world that is not true of anything physical:

"Possibly exists while nothing physical exists"

Since the mind would have a modal property that nothing physical could possibly have, then the mind could not be anything physical assuming Solipsism is possible.

A Maximally Great Being (or God) could not exist if Solipsism is metaphysically possible because God can only exist if he exists in every possible world. However, if there is a possible world in which I am a Solipsistic entity, then there is a possible world in which God does not exist (the possible world in which only my mind exists).

So if Solipsism is metaphysically possible, then not only is Physicalism false but a Maximally Great Being cannot exist.

Initially, I am inclined to suggest that such a maximally great being could still exist in a solipsistic world, but its existence simply cannot be known.

Of course, I feel like ther is much more to than that, so I need to logic the shitt out of this. I'll respond when I've figured this out lol.
Donald invictus, deliver and be tart and huge by narrow.

"Especially so, but considering the nature of nuclear warheads, it's probably more like atomic annihilation than triple homicide." -Yours Truly

Vaarka swung his sword at the mod. However, since I am now incorporeal, he ends up accidentally striking the entire American landmass (It's a REALLY bastard sword), destroying both continents. Spiders are now at 50% of capacity.
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 8,513
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2017 10:51:25 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 1/10/2017 6:21:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
....Then Physicalism is false and a Maximally Great Being does not exist.

Physicalism would be false because if A is B, then whatever is true for A is true for B (Indescernability of Identicals). If Solpsism is possible then the following proposition is true:

"In some possible world W, mind exists while nothing physical exists"

However, there is no possible world in which something physical exists while nothing physical exists (that would be a contradiction).

Therefore if Solipsism is metaphysically possible, then there is something true about the mind in the actual world that is not true of anything physical:

"Possibly exists while nothing physical exists"

Since the mind would have a modal property that nothing physical could possibly have, then the mind could not be anything physical assuming Solipsism is possible.

A Maximally Great Being (or God) could not exist if Solipsism is metaphysically possible because God can only exist if he exists in every possible world. However, if there is a possible world in which I am a Solipsistic entity, then there is a possible world in which God does not exist (the possible world in which only my mind exists).

So if Solipsism is metaphysically possible, then not only is Physicalism false but a Maximally Great Being cannot exist.

If we are willing to define the function of a maximally great being in the manner that Descartes does, then yes, one could very well exist in a solipsistic world.
Donald invictus, deliver and be tart and huge by narrow.

"Especially so, but considering the nature of nuclear warheads, it's probably more like atomic annihilation than triple homicide." -Yours Truly

Vaarka swung his sword at the mod. However, since I am now incorporeal, he ends up accidentally striking the entire American landmass (It's a REALLY bastard sword), destroying both continents. Spiders are now at 50% of capacity.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2017 10:51:35 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 1/10/2017 6:21:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
....Then Physicalism is false and a Maximally Great Being does not exist.

Physicalism would be false because if A is B, then whatever is true for A is true for B (Indescernability of Identicals). If Solpsism is possible then the following proposition is true:

"In some possible world W, mind exists while nothing physical exists"

However, there is no possible world in which something physical exists while nothing physical exists (that would be a contradiction).

Therefore if Solipsism is metaphysically possible, then there is something true about the mind in the actual world that is not true of anything physical:

"Possibly exists while nothing physical exists"

Since the mind would have a modal property that nothing physical could possibly have, then the mind could not be anything physical assuming Solipsism is possible.

A Maximally Great Being (or God) could not exist if Solipsism is metaphysically possible because God can only exist if he exists in every possible world. However, if there is a possible world in which I am a Solipsistic entity, then there is a possible world in which God does not exist (the possible world in which only my mind exists).

So if Solipsism is metaphysically possible, then not only is Physicalism false but a Maximally Great Being cannot exist.

Nonsense, Solipsism is epistemological, it is the belief that the self is the only thing that can be "known" to exist, there is no logical reason to think that such a belief can't be held in a world where physical things exist.

If it is metaphysically possible that the belief could be correct, that does not rule out the metaphysical possibility that the belief could be incorrect.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
keithprosser
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2017 12:35:04 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 1/11/2017 10:51:35 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 1/10/2017 6:21:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
....Then Physicalism is false and a Maximally Great Being does not exist.

Physicalism would be false because if A is B, then whatever is true for A is true for B (Indescernability of Identicals). If Solpsism is possible then the following proposition is true:

"In some possible world W, mind exists while nothing physical exists"

However, there is no possible world in which something physical exists while nothing physical exists (that would be a contradiction).

Therefore if Solipsism is metaphysically possible, then there is something true about the mind in the actual world that is not true of anything physical:

"Possibly exists while nothing physical exists"

Since the mind would have a modal property that nothing physical could possibly have, then the mind could not be anything physical assuming Solipsism is possible.

A Maximally Great Being (or God) could not exist if Solipsism is metaphysically possible because God can only exist if he exists in every possible world. However, if there is a possible world in which I am a Solipsistic entity, then there is a possible world in which God does not exist (the possible world in which only my mind exists).

So if Solipsism is metaphysically possible, then not only is Physicalism false but a Maximally Great Being cannot exist.

Nonsense, Solipsism is epistemological, it is the belief that the self is the only thing that can be "known" to exist, there is no logical reason to think that such a belief can't be held in a world where physical things exist.

If it is metaphysically possible that the belief could be correct, that does not rule out the metaphysical possibility that the belief could be incorrect.

I would not count that as a refutation because it hinges on a particular definition of solipsism as a belief. The OP usefully specfies how the word 'solipsism' is intended:
"mind exists while nothing physical exists". We don't need the word 'solipsism' at all.

The OP's thesis is
"if world (w) in which only the w-mind exists is a possible world then a maximally great entity does not exist in the actual world."

The OP tacitly defines 'greatness' as 'a being X is greater than being Y if X possibly exists in one or more possible worlds than Y' and defines 'possibly exists' as 'not positively ruled out on logical grounds'.

Clearly on the basis of that definition the 'greatest' or ('maximally great') being would be a being that cannot be ruled out one logical grounds in all possible worlds.

(As far as the OP is concerned a 'possible world' is a self-consisent world defined by a definite rule or condition, such 'Produced by a mind and consisting of nothing but that mind'. The mind producing such a world (w) I will term the w-mind).

Having supposed the possible existence of W as a world in which there is only the w-mind (and nothing else), then that precludes the existence of a being that can exist in all possible worlds because all that exists in W is the w-mind by definition.

Looked at that way I think the OP's argument has shown that a particular set of definitions are incompatible, but has said very little about hard facts.
Perussi
Posts: 1,828
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2017 12:38:10 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 1/10/2017 6:21:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
....Then Physicalism is false and a Maximally Great Being does not exist.

Physicalism would be false because if A is B, then whatever is true for A is true for B (Indescernability of Identicals). If Solpsism is possible then the following proposition is true:

"In some possible world W, mind exists while nothing physical exists"

However, there is no possible world in which something physical exists while nothing physical exists (that would be a contradiction).

Therefore if Solipsism is metaphysically possible, then there is something true about the mind in the actual world that is not true of anything physical:

"Possibly exists while nothing physical exists"

Since the mind would have a modal property that nothing physical could possibly have, then the mind could not be anything physical assuming Solipsism is possible.

A Maximally Great Being (or God) could not exist if Solipsism is metaphysically possible because God can only exist if he exists in every possible world. However, if there is a possible world in which I am a Solipsistic entity, then there is a possible world in which God does not exist (the possible world in which only my mind exists).

So if Solipsism is metaphysically possible, then not only is Physicalism false but a Maximally Great Being cannot exist.

We have not confirmed any other universes or worlds.
jesus loves you
keithprosser
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2017 12:38:37 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
Oops!
What I wrote was

"Clearly on the basis of that definition the 'greatest' or ('maximally great') being would be a being that cannot be ruled out one logical grounds in all possible worlds."

What I should have written is:
"Clearly on the basis of that definition the 'greatest' or ('maximally great') being would be a being that cannot be ruled out on logical grounds in any possible world."
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,356
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2017 1:55:29 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 1/11/2017 10:51:35 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 1/10/2017 6:21:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
....Then Physicalism is false and a Maximally Great Being does not exist.

Physicalism would be false because if A is B, then whatever is true for A is true for B (Indescernability of Identicals). If Solpsism is possible then the following proposition is true:

"In some possible world W, mind exists while nothing physical exists"

However, there is no possible world in which something physical exists while nothing physical exists (that would be a contradiction).

Therefore if Solipsism is metaphysically possible, then there is something true about the mind in the actual world that is not true of anything physical:

"Possibly exists while nothing physical exists"

Since the mind would have a modal property that nothing physical could possibly have, then the mind could not be anything physical assuming Solipsism is possible.

A Maximally Great Being (or God) could not exist if Solipsism is metaphysically possible because God can only exist if he exists in every possible world. However, if there is a possible world in which I am a Solipsistic entity, then there is a possible world in which God does not exist (the possible world in which only my mind exists).

So if Solipsism is metaphysically possible, then not only is Physicalism false but a Maximally Great Being cannot exist.

Nonsense, Solipsism is epistemological, it is the belief that the self is the only thing that can be "known" to exist, there is no logical reason to think that such a belief can't be held in a world where physical things exist.

You are talking about epistemological Solipsism, I am talking about metaphysical Solipsism.


If it is metaphysically possible that the belief could be correct, that does not rule out the metaphysical possibility that the belief could be incorrect.

Still wouldn't change the argument any.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,356
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2017 1:56:12 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 1/11/2017 12:38:10 PM, Perussi wrote:
At 1/10/2017 6:21:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
....Then Physicalism is false and a Maximally Great Being does not exist.

Physicalism would be false because if A is B, then whatever is true for A is true for B (Indescernability of Identicals). If Solpsism is possible then the following proposition is true:

"In some possible world W, mind exists while nothing physical exists"

However, there is no possible world in which something physical exists while nothing physical exists (that would be a contradiction).

Therefore if Solipsism is metaphysically possible, then there is something true about the mind in the actual world that is not true of anything physical:

"Possibly exists while nothing physical exists"

Since the mind would have a modal property that nothing physical could possibly have, then the mind could not be anything physical assuming Solipsism is possible.

A Maximally Great Being (or God) could not exist if Solipsism is metaphysically possible because God can only exist if he exists in every possible world. However, if there is a possible world in which I am a Solipsistic entity, then there is a possible world in which God does not exist (the possible world in which only my mind exists).

So if Solipsism is metaphysically possible, then not only is Physicalism false but a Maximally Great Being cannot exist.

We have not confirmed any other universes or worlds.

I am talking about possible worlds (Modal Logic).
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,356
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2017 1:57:06 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 1/11/2017 10:46:17 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 1/10/2017 6:21:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
....Then Physicalism is false and a Maximally Great Being does not exist.

Physicalism would be false because if A is B, then whatever is true for A is true for B (Indescernability of Identicals). If Solpsism is possible then the following proposition is true:

"In some possible world W, mind exists while nothing physical exists"

However, there is no possible world in which something physical exists while nothing physical exists (that would be a contradiction).

Therefore if Solipsism is metaphysically possible, then there is something true about the mind in the actual world that is not true of anything physical:

"Possibly exists while nothing physical exists"

Since the mind would have a modal property that nothing physical could possibly have, then the mind could not be anything physical assuming Solipsism is possible.

A Maximally Great Being (or God) could not exist if Solipsism is metaphysically possible because God can only exist if he exists in every possible world. However, if there is a possible world in which I am a Solipsistic entity, then there is a possible world in which God does not exist (the possible world in which only my mind exists).

So if Solipsism is metaphysically possible, then not only is Physicalism false but a Maximally Great Being cannot exist.

Initially, I am inclined to suggest that such a maximally great being could still exist in a solipsistic world, but its existence simply cannot be known.

Only if we are talking about epistemological Solipsism, I and talking about metaphysical Solipsism.


Of course, I feel like ther is much more to than that, so I need to logic the shitt out of this. I'll respond when I've figured this out lol.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,356
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2017 2:00:28 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 1/11/2017 10:13:24 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 1/10/2017 6:21:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
....Then Physicalism is false and a Maximally Great Being does not exist.

Physicalism would be false because if A is B, then whatever is true for A is true for B (Indescernability of Identicals). If Solpsism is possible then the following proposition is true:

"In some possible world W, mind exists while nothing physical exists"

However, there is no possible world in which something physical exists while nothing physical exists (that would be a contradiction).

Therefore if Solipsism is metaphysically possible, then there is something true about the mind in the actual world that is not true of anything physical:

"Possibly exists while nothing physical exists"

Since the mind would have a modal property that nothing physical could possibly have, then the mind could not be anything physical assuming Solipsism is possible.

A Maximally Great Being (or God) could not exist if Solipsism is metaphysically possible because God can only exist if he exists in every possible world. However, if there is a possible world in which I am a Solipsistic entity, then there is a possible world in which God does not exist (the possible world in which only my mind exists).

So if Solipsism is metaphysically possible, then not only is Physicalism false but a Maximally Great Being cannot exist.

I have a question, well more of a challenge to Monistic Idealist. I understand this to mean you reject there is no physical reality.

When a person gets put in prison for rape, we don't send them to jail cause he "thought" about rape, but rather committed the act of rape........PHYSICALLY.

There is no crime in just thinking about rapeing some one, but if you reject a physical reality, then physical acts such as rape can NOT occur, which means we have people in prison for committing crimes which are impossible to do in the first place, physical acts of various crimes, eg rape.

Yeah comment on that.

Under Idealism, your body is a mental avatar that can interact with with other minds. Just thinking about rape isn't going to cause someone conscious suffering, but controlling your mental avatar in such a way that it causes conscious suffering like with regards to rape then of course rape can still occur. Instead of physical bodies we would just be controlling mental avatars, but the horror experienced on behalf of the rape victim remains the same regardless.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,356
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2017 2:01:24 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 1/11/2017 10:51:25 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 1/10/2017 6:21:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
....Then Physicalism is false and a Maximally Great Being does not exist.

Physicalism would be false because if A is B, then whatever is true for A is true for B (Indescernability of Identicals). If Solpsism is possible then the following proposition is true:

"In some possible world W, mind exists while nothing physical exists"

However, there is no possible world in which something physical exists while nothing physical exists (that would be a contradiction).

Therefore if Solipsism is metaphysically possible, then there is something true about the mind in the actual world that is not true of anything physical:

"Possibly exists while nothing physical exists"

Since the mind would have a modal property that nothing physical could possibly have, then the mind could not be anything physical assuming Solipsism is possible.

A Maximally Great Being (or God) could not exist if Solipsism is metaphysically possible because God can only exist if he exists in every possible world. However, if there is a possible world in which I am a Solipsistic entity, then there is a possible world in which God does not exist (the possible world in which only my mind exists).

So if Solipsism is metaphysically possible, then not only is Physicalism false but a Maximally Great Being cannot exist.

If we are willing to define the function of a maximally great being in the manner that Descartes does, then yes, one could very well exist in a solipsistic world.

Solipsism means only my mind exists. Thus, an additional mind (God) could not live in that possible world.
Perussi
Posts: 1,828
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2017 2:01:48 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 1/11/2017 1:56:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/11/2017 12:38:10 PM, Perussi wrote:
At 1/10/2017 6:21:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
....Then Physicalism is false and a Maximally Great Being does not exist.

Physicalism would be false because if A is B, then whatever is true for A is true for B (Indescernability of Identicals). If Solpsism is possible then the following proposition is true:

"In some possible world W, mind exists while nothing physical exists"

However, there is no possible world in which something physical exists while nothing physical exists (that would be a contradiction).

Therefore if Solipsism is metaphysically possible, then there is something true about the mind in the actual world that is not true of anything physical:

"Possibly exists while nothing physical exists"

Since the mind would have a modal property that nothing physical could possibly have, then the mind could not be anything physical assuming Solipsism is possible.

A Maximally Great Being (or God) could not exist if Solipsism is metaphysically possible because God can only exist if he exists in every possible world. However, if there is a possible world in which I am a Solipsistic entity, then there is a possible world in which God does not exist (the possible world in which only my mind exists).

So if Solipsism is metaphysically possible, then not only is Physicalism false but a Maximally Great Being cannot exist.

We have not confirmed any other universes or worlds.

I am talking about possible worlds (Modal Logic).

So this is possibly true. That's what i'm getting at.

Did you want it to be certain?
jesus loves you
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,356
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2017 2:03:42 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 1/11/2017 2:01:48 PM, Perussi wrote:
At 1/11/2017 1:56:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/11/2017 12:38:10 PM, Perussi wrote:
At 1/10/2017 6:21:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
....Then Physicalism is false and a Maximally Great Being does not exist.

Physicalism would be false because if A is B, then whatever is true for A is true for B (Indescernability of Identicals). If Solpsism is possible then the following proposition is true:

"In some possible world W, mind exists while nothing physical exists"

However, there is no possible world in which something physical exists while nothing physical exists (that would be a contradiction).

Therefore if Solipsism is metaphysically possible, then there is something true about the mind in the actual world that is not true of anything physical:

"Possibly exists while nothing physical exists"

Since the mind would have a modal property that nothing physical could possibly have, then the mind could not be anything physical assuming Solipsism is possible.

A Maximally Great Being (or God) could not exist if Solipsism is metaphysically possible because God can only exist if he exists in every possible world. However, if there is a possible world in which I am a Solipsistic entity, then there is a possible world in which God does not exist (the possible world in which only my mind exists).

So if Solipsism is metaphysically possible, then not only is Physicalism false but a Maximally Great Being cannot exist.

We have not confirmed any other universes or worlds.

I am talking about possible worlds (Modal Logic).

So this is possibly true. That's what i'm getting at.

Did you want it to be certain?

The argument has nothing to do with "want".
Perussi
Posts: 1,828
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2017 2:05:05 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 1/11/2017 2:03:42 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/11/2017 2:01:48 PM, Perussi wrote:
At 1/11/2017 1:56:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/11/2017 12:38:10 PM, Perussi wrote:
At 1/10/2017 6:21:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
....Then Physicalism is false and a Maximally Great Being does not exist.

Physicalism would be false because if A is B, then whatever is true for A is true for B (Indescernability of Identicals). If Solpsism is possible then the following proposition is true:

"In some possible world W, mind exists while nothing physical exists"

However, there is no possible world in which something physical exists while nothing physical exists (that would be a contradiction).

Therefore if Solipsism is metaphysically possible, then there is something true about the mind in the actual world that is not true of anything physical:

"Possibly exists while nothing physical exists"

Since the mind would have a modal property that nothing physical could possibly have, then the mind could not be anything physical assuming Solipsism is possible.

A Maximally Great Being (or God) could not exist if Solipsism is metaphysically possible because God can only exist if he exists in every possible world. However, if there is a possible world in which I am a Solipsistic entity, then there is a possible world in which God does not exist (the possible world in which only my mind exists).

So if Solipsism is metaphysically possible, then not only is Physicalism false but a Maximally Great Being cannot exist.

We have not confirmed any other universes or worlds.

I am talking about possible worlds (Modal Logic).

So this is possibly true. That's what i'm getting at.

Did you want it to be certain?

The argument has nothing to do with "want".

That statement is nonsensical.
jesus loves you
Smithereens
Posts: 6,677
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2017 2:05:58 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
I'll assume this is your argument:

1) If G exist, G exists in all possible worlds.
2) If solipsism is possible, there is at least one possible world where G does not exist.
3) solipsism is possible
C: G is impossible.

I'm not sure why you pick God out of every claim which demands necessary status. Interestingly, the conclusion remains 'valid' if we substitute in something to make the argument ridiculous:

1) If triangles are defined as always having three sides, then they have three sides in all possible worlds
2) If solipsism is possible, there is a world where triangles don't have three sides
3) Solipsism is possible
C: Triangles can't have three sides.

The issue you're going to take is with premise 2. Why should we believe this? Well, for the same reason premise 2 from the original argument works: 'If solipsism is possible, there is at least one possible world where G does not exist.' In both instances the law of identity is broken, it's not different for one.
"Your signature should not have the name of other players in the game, nor should it have the words VTL, Vote, or Unvote."
~Yraelz, 2017
illegalcombat
Posts: 838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2017 2:11:43 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 1/11/2017 2:00:28 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/11/2017 10:13:24 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 1/10/2017 6:21:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
....Then Physicalism is false and a Maximally Great Being does not exist.

Physicalism would be false because if A is B, then whatever is true for A is true for B (Indescernability of Identicals). If Solpsism is possible then the following proposition is true:

"In some possible world W, mind exists while nothing physical exists"

However, there is no possible world in which something physical exists while nothing physical exists (that would be a contradiction).

Therefore if Solipsism is metaphysically possible, then there is something true about the mind in the actual world that is not true of anything physical:

"Possibly exists while nothing physical exists"

Since the mind would have a modal property that nothing physical could possibly have, then the mind could not be anything physical assuming Solipsism is possible.

A Maximally Great Being (or God) could not exist if Solipsism is metaphysically possible because God can only exist if he exists in every possible world. However, if there is a possible world in which I am a Solipsistic entity, then there is a possible world in which God does not exist (the possible world in which only my mind exists).

So if Solipsism is metaphysically possible, then not only is Physicalism false but a Maximally Great Being cannot exist.

I have a question, well more of a challenge to Monistic Idealist. I understand this to mean you reject there is no physical reality.

When a person gets put in prison for rape, we don't send them to jail cause he "thought" about rape, but rather committed the act of rape........PHYSICALLY.

There is no crime in just thinking about rapeing some one, but if you reject a physical reality, then physical acts such as rape can NOT occur, which means we have people in prison for committing crimes which are impossible to do in the first place, physical acts of various crimes, eg rape.

Yeah comment on that.

Under Idealism, your body is a mental avatar that can interact with with other minds. Just thinking about rape isn't going to cause someone conscious suffering, but controlling your mental avatar in such a way that it causes conscious suffering like with regards to rape then of course rape can still occur. Instead of physical bodies we would just be controlling mental avatars, but the horror experienced on behalf of the rape victim remains the same regardless.

But again, physical rape can't happen cause under this view, the physical exist in the first place.

So under this view, what does it even mean to say some one got raped ?
Smithereens
Posts: 6,677
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2017 2:16:23 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 1/11/2017 2:11:43 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
But again, physical rape can't happen cause under this view, the physical exist in the first place.

So under this view, what does it even mean to say some one got raped ?

You should understand that there isn't an epistemic difference between physical rape and apparent physical rape, which is what his argument is trying to say.
"Your signature should not have the name of other players in the game, nor should it have the words VTL, Vote, or Unvote."
~Yraelz, 2017
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,356
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2017 2:23:38 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 1/11/2017 2:05:05 PM, Perussi wrote:
At 1/11/2017 2:03:42 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/11/2017 2:01:48 PM, Perussi wrote:
At 1/11/2017 1:56:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/11/2017 12:38:10 PM, Perussi wrote:
At 1/10/2017 6:21:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
....Then Physicalism is false and a Maximally Great Being does not exist.

Physicalism would be false because if A is B, then whatever is true for A is true for B (Indescernability of Identicals). If Solpsism is possible then the following proposition is true:

"In some possible world W, mind exists while nothing physical exists"

However, there is no possible world in which something physical exists while nothing physical exists (that would be a contradiction).

Therefore if Solipsism is metaphysically possible, then there is something true about the mind in the actual world that is not true of anything physical:

"Possibly exists while nothing physical exists"

Since the mind would have a modal property that nothing physical could possibly have, then the mind could not be anything physical assuming Solipsism is possible.

A Maximally Great Being (or God) could not exist if Solipsism is metaphysically possible because God can only exist if he exists in every possible world. However, if there is a possible world in which I am a Solipsistic entity, then there is a possible world in which God does not exist (the possible world in which only my mind exists).

So if Solipsism is metaphysically possible, then not only is Physicalism false but a Maximally Great Being cannot exist.

We have not confirmed any other universes or worlds.

I am talking about possible worlds (Modal Logic).

So this is possibly true. That's what i'm getting at.

Did you want it to be certain?

The argument has nothing to do with "want".

That statement is nonsensical.

Not at all.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,356
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2017 2:25:46 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 1/11/2017 2:05:58 PM, Smithereens wrote:
I'll assume this is your argument:

1) If G exist, G exists in all possible worlds.
2) If solipsism is possible, there is at least one possible world where G does not exist.
3) solipsism is possible
C: G is impossible.

I'm not sure why you pick God out of every claim which demands necessary status. Interestingly, the conclusion remains 'valid' if we substitute in something to make the argument ridiculous:

1) If triangles are defined as always having three sides, then they have three sides in all possible worlds
2) If solipsism is possible, there is a world where triangles don't have three sides
3) Solipsism is possible
C: Triangles can't have three sides.

The issue you're going to take is with premise 2. Why should we believe this? Well, for the same reason premise 2 from the original argument works: 'If solipsism is possible, there is at least one possible world where G does not exist.' In both instances the law of identity is broken, it's not different for one.

2 in your argument is false because whether Solipsism is true or not a triangle would still have three sides.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,356
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2017 2:27:17 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 1/11/2017 2:11:43 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 1/11/2017 2:00:28 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/11/2017 10:13:24 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 1/10/2017 6:21:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
....Then Physicalism is false and a Maximally Great Being does not exist.

Physicalism would be false because if A is B, then whatever is true for A is true for B (Indescernability of Identicals). If Solpsism is possible then the following proposition is true:

"In some possible world W, mind exists while nothing physical exists"

However, there is no possible world in which something physical exists while nothing physical exists (that would be a contradiction).

Therefore if Solipsism is metaphysically possible, then there is something true about the mind in the actual world that is not true of anything physical:

"Possibly exists while nothing physical exists"

Since the mind would have a modal property that nothing physical could possibly have, then the mind could not be anything physical assuming Solipsism is possible.

A Maximally Great Being (or God) could not exist if Solipsism is metaphysically possible because God can only exist if he exists in every possible world. However, if there is a possible world in which I am a Solipsistic entity, then there is a possible world in which God does not exist (the possible world in which only my mind exists).

So if Solipsism is metaphysically possible, then not only is Physicalism false but a Maximally Great Being cannot exist.

I have a question, well more of a challenge to Monistic Idealist. I understand this to mean you reject there is no physical reality.

When a person gets put in prison for rape, we don't send them to jail cause he "thought" about rape, but rather committed the act of rape........PHYSICALLY.

There is no crime in just thinking about rapeing some one, but if you reject a physical reality, then physical acts such as rape can NOT occur, which means we have people in prison for committing crimes which are impossible to do in the first place, physical acts of various crimes, eg rape.

Yeah comment on that.

Under Idealism, your body is a mental avatar that can interact with with other minds. Just thinking about rape isn't going to cause someone conscious suffering, but controlling your mental avatar in such a way that it causes conscious suffering like with regards to rape then of course rape can still occur. Instead of physical bodies we would just be controlling mental avatars, but the horror experienced on behalf of the rape victim remains the same regardless.

But again, physical rape can't happen cause under this view, the physical exist in the first place.

So under this view, what does it even mean to say some one got raped ?

What Smithereeens said.
Smithereens
Posts: 6,677
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2017 2:32:42 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 1/11/2017 2:25:46 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/11/2017 2:05:58 PM, Smithereens wrote:
I'll assume this is your argument:

1) If G exist, G exists in all possible worlds.
2) If solipsism is possible, there is at least one possible world where G does not exist.
3) solipsism is possible
C: G is impossible.

I'm not sure why you pick God out of every claim which demands necessary status. Interestingly, the conclusion remains 'valid' if we substitute in something to make the argument ridiculous:

1) If triangles are defined as always having three sides, then they have three sides in all possible worlds
2) If solipsism is possible, there is a world where triangles don't have three sides
3) Solipsism is possible
C: Triangles can't have three sides.

The issue you're going to take is with premise 2. Why should we believe this? Well, for the same reason premise 2 from the original argument works: 'If solipsism is possible, there is at least one possible world where G does not exist.' In both instances the law of identity is broken, it's not different for one.

2 in your argument is false because whether Solipsism is true or not a triangle would still have three sides.

Solipsism entails that this law is constructed in our minds, meaning there is a possible world where our construction is reflective of a reality where triangles do not have three sides, while our definition remains constant.

It's the same for God since G is a term we define, in the same way that we define a triangle to always have three sides. If solipsism is true, there is a world where claims such as 'G exists' are not true independent of the mind. Therefore it is perfectly possible to conceive of a world where both 'G exists' is false, and Triangles have 3 sides is also false.

The argument can be extended to all necessary claims. It follows that proposition P which is Neccesary N is not necessary in a possible world.
S -> ~N(N[P])
C: ~P
"Your signature should not have the name of other players in the game, nor should it have the words VTL, Vote, or Unvote."
~Yraelz, 2017
illegalcombat
Posts: 838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2017 2:33:07 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 1/11/2017 2:16:23 PM, Smithereens wrote:
At 1/11/2017 2:11:43 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
But again, physical rape can't happen cause under this view, the physical exist in the first place.

So under this view, what does it even mean to say some one got raped ?

You should understand that there isn't an epistemic difference between physical rape and apparent physical rape, which is what his argument is trying to say.

But there is an ontological one right ?

Which goes back to my question, if you reject the physical, what does it even mean to say some one got raped ? what are we jailing them for ?
Perussi
Posts: 1,828
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2017 2:37:34 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 1/11/2017 2:23:38 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/11/2017 2:05:05 PM, Perussi wrote:
At 1/11/2017 2:03:42 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/11/2017 2:01:48 PM, Perussi wrote:
At 1/11/2017 1:56:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/11/2017 12:38:10 PM, Perussi wrote:
At 1/10/2017 6:21:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
....Then Physicalism is false and a Maximally Great Being does not exist.

Physicalism would be false because if A is B, then whatever is true for A is true for B (Indescernability of Identicals). If Solpsism is possible then the following proposition is true:

"In some possible world W, mind exists while nothing physical exists"

However, there is no possible world in which something physical exists while nothing physical exists (that would be a contradiction).

Therefore if Solipsism is metaphysically possible, then there is something true about the mind in the actual world that is not true of anything physical:

"Possibly exists while nothing physical exists"

Since the mind would have a modal property that nothing physical could possibly have, then the mind could not be anything physical assuming Solipsism is possible.

A Maximally Great Being (or God) could not exist if Solipsism is metaphysically possible because God can only exist if he exists in every possible world. However, if there is a possible world in which I am a Solipsistic entity, then there is a possible world in which God does not exist (the possible world in which only my mind exists).

So if Solipsism is metaphysically possible, then not only is Physicalism false but a Maximally Great Being cannot exist.

We have not confirmed any other universes or worlds.

I am talking about possible worlds (Modal Logic).

So this is possibly true. That's what i'm getting at.

Did you want it to be certain?

The argument has nothing to do with "want".

That statement is nonsensical.

Not at all.

Did you want it to be certain?

^^^ This concerns the intent of the argument and not the argument itself. It doesn't make sence that you stated what you stated.

I will not relpy to this post.
jesus loves you
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,356
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2017 2:42:34 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 1/11/2017 2:37:34 PM, Perussi wrote:
At 1/11/2017 2:23:38 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/11/2017 2:05:05 PM, Perussi wrote:
At 1/11/2017 2:03:42 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/11/2017 2:01:48 PM, Perussi wrote:
At 1/11/2017 1:56:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/11/2017 12:38:10 PM, Perussi wrote:
At 1/10/2017 6:21:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
....Then Physicalism is false and a Maximally Great Being does not exist.

Physicalism would be false because if A is B, then whatever is true for A is true for B (Indescernability of Identicals). If Solpsism is possible then the following proposition is true:

"In some possible world W, mind exists while nothing physical exists"

However, there is no possible world in which something physical exists while nothing physical exists (that would be a contradiction).

Therefore if Solipsism is metaphysically possible, then there is something true about the mind in the actual world that is not true of anything physical:

"Possibly exists while nothing physical exists"

Since the mind would have a modal property that nothing physical could possibly have, then the mind could not be anything physical assuming Solipsism is possible.

A Maximally Great Being (or God) could not exist if Solipsism is metaphysically possible because God can only exist if he exists in every possible world. However, if there is a possible world in which I am a Solipsistic entity, then there is a possible world in which God does not exist (the possible world in which only my mind exists).

So if Solipsism is metaphysically possible, then not only is Physicalism false but a Maximally Great Being cannot exist.

We have not confirmed any other universes or worlds.

I am talking about possible worlds (Modal Logic).

So this is possibly true. That's what i'm getting at.

Did you want it to be certain?

The argument has nothing to do with "want".

That statement is nonsensical.

Not at all.

Did you want it to be certain?

^^^ This concerns the intent of the argument and not the argument itself. It doesn't make sence that you stated what you stated.

I will not relpy to this post.

A modal property of possibility applies to the actual world so we can still show certainty with with regards to premises of moral possibility.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,356
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2017 2:43:17 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 1/11/2017 2:37:34 PM, Perussi wrote:
At 1/11/2017 2:23:38 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/11/2017 2:05:05 PM, Perussi wrote:
At 1/11/2017 2:03:42 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/11/2017 2:01:48 PM, Perussi wrote:
At 1/11/2017 1:56:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/11/2017 12:38:10 PM, Perussi wrote:
At 1/10/2017 6:21:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
....Then Physicalism is false and a Maximally Great Being does not exist.

Physicalism would be false because if A is B, then whatever is true for A is true for B (Indescernability of Identicals). If Solpsism is possible then the following proposition is true:

"In some possible world W, mind exists while nothing physical exists"

However, there is no possible world in which something physical exists while nothing physical exists (that would be a contradiction).

Therefore if Solipsism is metaphysically possible, then there is something true about the mind in the actual world that is not true of anything physical:

"Possibly exists while nothing physical exists"

Since the mind would have a modal property that nothing physical could possibly have, then the mind could not be anything physical assuming Solipsism is possible.

A Maximally Great Being (or God) could not exist if Solipsism is metaphysically possible because God can only exist if he exists in every possible world. However, if there is a possible world in which I am a Solipsistic entity, then there is a possible world in which God does not exist (the possible world in which only my mind exists).

So if Solipsism is metaphysically possible, then not only is Physicalism false but a Maximally Great Being cannot exist.

We have not confirmed any other universes or worlds.

I am talking about possible worlds (Modal Logic).

So this is possibly true. That's what i'm getting at.

Did you want it to be certain?

The argument has nothing to do with "want".

That statement is nonsensical.

Not at all.

Did you want it to be certain?

^^^ This concerns the intent of the argument and not the argument itself. It doesn't make sence that you stated what you stated.

I will not relpy to this post.

*modal (not moral)
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,356
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2017 2:44:22 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 1/11/2017 2:33:07 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 1/11/2017 2:16:23 PM, Smithereens wrote:
At 1/11/2017 2:11:43 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
But again, physical rape can't happen cause under this view, the physical exist in the first place.

So under this view, what does it even mean to say some one got raped ?

You should understand that there isn't an epistemic difference between physical rape and apparent physical rape, which is what his argument is trying to say.

But there is an ontological one right ?

Which goes back to my question, if you reject the physical, what does it even mean to say some one got raped ? what are we jailing them for ?

Because the personal still got raped, whether it's a physical body or mental avatar is irrelevant.
Smithereens
Posts: 6,677
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2017 2:46:23 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 1/11/2017 2:33:07 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 1/11/2017 2:16:23 PM, Smithereens wrote:
At 1/11/2017 2:11:43 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
But again, physical rape can't happen cause under this view, the physical exist in the first place.

So under this view, what does it even mean to say some one got raped ?

You should understand that there isn't an epistemic difference between physical rape and apparent physical rape, which is what his argument is trying to say.

But there is an ontological one right ?

Which goes back to my question, if you reject the physical, what does it even mean to say some one got raped ? what are we jailing them for ?

No, that's not a relevant issue to the argument, as I said. You've presumed that reality exists independently of the mind, and then claimed that morality weights according to actions in the non-mental reality. Both these presumptions are not justified.

You can't differentiate between rape in the mental reality and rape in the actual reality, because both are one and the same. Existence is not predicated.
"Your signature should not have the name of other players in the game, nor should it have the words VTL, Vote, or Unvote."
~Yraelz, 2017
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,356
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2017 2:47:31 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 1/11/2017 2:46:23 PM, Smithereens wrote:
At 1/11/2017 2:33:07 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 1/11/2017 2:16:23 PM, Smithereens wrote:
At 1/11/2017 2:11:43 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
But again, physical rape can't happen cause under this view, the physical exist in the first place.

So under this view, what does it even mean to say some one got raped ?

You should understand that there isn't an epistemic difference between physical rape and apparent physical rape, which is what his argument is trying to say.

But there is an ontological one right ?

Which goes back to my question, if you reject the physical, what does it even mean to say some one got raped ? what are we jailing them for ?

No, that's not a relevant issue to the argument, as I said. You've presumed that reality exists independently of the mind, and then claimed that morality weights according to actions in the non-mental reality. Both these presumptions are not justified.

You can't differentiate between rape in the mental reality and rape in the actual reality, because both are one and the same. Existence is not predicated.

Bingo.