are we supposing that a unicorn is real inasmuch as it is a concept? that is what you mean by the word actual, correct? that the unicorn is an idea, but not an actual thing as we know things. if i am not correct, thinking in this way, god must exist because it is a concept. from that i would infer that you might support the view that every mind is an independent reality to itself. how am i doing? hey scribes: could you please go be an intolerable nuisance elsewhere? i asked nicely. you are projecting your superiority complex on me and i don't enjoy it. please stop.
Anything that could possibly exist in some world is real. But only things that happen in this one are actual. Things are necessary if they have to happen in every possible world. There exists some world "w" such that the proposition "unicorns are actual" obtains. The above statement has a definite truth value, and it's totally correct. But to us, that world wouldn't be actual, the unicorns are only actual to people in those worlds. This makes the term "actual" indexical. I had to read so much shit and write a paper at some point to prove I knew what indexical meant, and I passed, but I'll have to sober up and think about it if I go any further. Wait...."it's indexical" just means that it can be in statements about one world that contradict statement's it's in in another world, and yet there is no real contradiction. It's function is evenly distributed over all objects in the set, and it's not a "rigid designator". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigid_designator This is getting into that first link for modal logic. See they do the mathematical part, then they come up w/ a "semantic" for the quantification where you can express the concepts in the english language instead of in numbers so long as you say it all a certain way. Check out modal logic semantics or kripke semantics to get an idea of what I'm talking about. Intellectually, this shit makes the matrix look like a children's book. It makes me giggle like a little kid when I type this stuff. It's 3:30am and I've been smoking the bong on the couch since about 9.
I have tomorrow off so hopefully I can learn more from you after looking into the details of modal logic. Hope you'll still be looking at the thread in that much time.
Coincidentally you could imagine looking at this world through a 4th dimensional being's sight or a 2 dimensional being's eyes and the results will be unanimously mindblowing
I think these ideas suggest the possibility of dimensions we don't accept. 5th dimension might be more accurate. We're not looking at our own reality anymore, now we are looking at all of possibility.
Scribes I'm not as well versed in physics as I am metaphysics. Could you help me understand the dimension thing you're describing? There might be a different word for it that'd fit right in w/ some formal semantics.
Well it would be pretty much looking at what ignited the big bang as well as what preceded it. I go the spiritual route and verify it with science
Finally, you say something interesting. Are you telling us that spirituality and science go hand in hand?
I think sometimes that's called "the problem of first cause". You're right that science is a process of verification. As an inductive method, science seeks to either validate or debunk a hypothesis based on empirical evidence. While that method is capable of yielding incredible amounts of useful information about the world around us, it's limited in that it can only properly handle the observable. There was no perception at the inception of the universe. No one was there. Chaos theory or any variant or element of it, (uncertainty principle?) tells us that we can't even know if our speculations about anything are correct when dealing w/ large-scale speculations about things unknowable. So science can't really address the problem of first cause. And many people in the world turn to spirituality for answers, (even though the standard of evidence might not be as high, some answer is better than no answer even a scientist would agree).
Thats what I ask you every time in every encounter but you think I'm condescending or something. Spirituality and Science validate each other
Spirituality does have the answers but this is what Christianity and other religions exploit to gain their followers. What if I told you the universe came to be when God was born? Similar to how we were born and gave life to our blood cells. Would that be a far-fetched idea and why? Mind you don't confuse actual God with the descriptions from the scriptures because they are not the same. He/She/Gender exempt does not beget nor is begotten
Kant might say if there's a god he's qua noumena. A Nietzsche scholar who doesn't like Kant would say.... "Kant tries to squeeze god in the back door w/ that damn qua noumena stuff!! Damn idealist!!""