Objective Metaphysics

I am sorry if this OP is short on content. It is my hope that the conversation can go organically.

What are the implications of the following axioms?

1. Existence exists
2. To be conscious is to be conscious of something
3. A=A

Can these be considered objectively irrefutable, irreducible, and self-evident? If not, why not? If so, what does this mean for our epistemology and our theory of concepts?

Originally posted by Philodemus
What are the implications of the following axioms?

1. Existence exists
2. To be conscious is to be conscious of something
3. A=A

Can these be considered objectively irrefutable, irreducible, and self-evident? If not, why not? If so, what does this mean for our epistemology and our theory of concepts?

This will take time, the container wall of our dynamic physical 3d world and the laws defined by our 4d container.

All that is in existence is that which didn't exist and "now did". If existence truly existed as a definable, unchanging, describable-at-any-time-for-any-time object all creation, ideas and thoughts would stop. Therefore, in the vast rain of potential, this is just a drop in the bucket of the idea of existence and there's more to come that will define and change it further. Existence is an idea that is dynamic.

A dynamic idea doesn't exist as it changes before it can be created, cementeddefined and committed. Right now, existence EXISTED as now will have existed in the next moment... Only a dynamic IDEA of existence exists ever, at all, and is evermore complex in its description and inventory within. I'll put forth that only expansion truly exists after this moment, not existence.

To be conscious of nothing is to be unconscious, yet still be, but only in hindsight. There's nothing to be conscious of in that moment and no tangible proof of anything or idea. Statically being is identification with the now moment and even the "time container" of now is not perceivable when unconscious. Not even time can exist in unconsciousness. Now, nor the idea of now, does not exist in unconsciousness. So yes, you have to be conscious of BEING at least, to be conscious. Being isn't a noun, in this sense, but a verb. So you do not have to be conscious of anyTHING to be conscious, just awareness itself.

A does not equal A, in time. Once the second A is observed, the first A is in the past as perceived in time. A simply is A at that time. If enough time passes, whatever number that represents what is counted or idea A represents has reduced it's form to the elements or the idea has passed from perception, changing its description and likely forming the basis of another variable or idea. There will always be a moment in time that anything perceived as equal is unequal in the smallest measurable way, in deeper scrutiny. A can never truly & statically equal A in the time domain. If A is cloned, the cloned A will exist for a moment longer and be unequal in that one moment. Even when wrote on paper or stone or steel, either A in the comparison will have broke down to its unrecognizable elements that were once contained in the medium before the one it is compared to.

But nothing is axiom in time, not even this axiom.

Here's one: "Only nothing, the undefinable, can statically be defined in time."


PS: Just took a stab at it. Better than nothing!

reply to post by Philodemus

1. Existence exists

Does flight fly? Does sight see? Does a swim swim? Does a fight fight? Does a kiss kiss? Does an answer...answer?

How can something be both subject and predicate?

Originally posted by Philodemus
I am sorry if this OP is short on content. It is my hope that the conversation can go organically.

What are the implications of the following axioms?

1. Existence exists

Existence is achieved and maintained by that which exists. The implication of your statement is that it isn't an axiom, but a misstatement. Existence doesn't exist. That which exists exists, having achieved existence.

2. To be conscious is to be conscious of something

This is why philosophy has devolved into the study of language. You're using "conscious" as both a noun and a verb, within the same sentence. Clever, but not in a manner that introduces any real implications beyond those inherently presented by semantics in general.

3. A=A

This cannot be true, since the 1st "A" exists prior to the "=" and the 2nd "A" exists following the "=". This is due to the fact that since neither "A" in your logic equation has been given a definite set of properties (seemingly making the two "A"s identical in concept) the physical placement of the printed placeholders (both "A"s) themselves has elevated that placement in relative context; establishing (due to the nature of time progression) that relative placement of each "A" within the equation itself as defining internal context for both "A"s and the equation itself as a whole. This blend of relative and internal context (per "A" and as the pair of "A"s within this specific logic statement) assigns inimitable Identity to each "A" and to the logic statement itself as the whole that it is. The fact that each "A" possesses inimitable Identity insists that they are not equal, but are unique and unlike each other. Next time assign something to each side of the "=" that can be equal. Like a quantity.

Can these be considered objectively irrefutable, irreducible, and self-evident? If not, why not? If so, what does this mean for our epistemology and our theory of concepts?

They can't be objectively irrefutable, irreducible or self-evident. They're each wrong.

Thank you to each of you for commenting. Detailed responses will follow.

Originally posted by Philodemus
I am sorry if this OP is short on content. It is my hope that the conversation can go organically.

What are the implications of the following axioms?

1. Existence exists
2. To be conscious is to be conscious of something
3. A=A

Can these be considered objectively irrefutable, irreducible, and self-evident? If not, why not? If so, what does this mean for our epistemology and our theory of concepts?

please excuse OP if not fully grasping it took some time to process...

it seems these can be PROVEN TRUTH by CREATOR as well as the GOD sends. it requires ADVANCED technologies and influences from HIGHER beings detected or undetected. And so then better examples could be made. Would require basically PROOF via experiments that could would fail w/o CREATOR or GODS sends intelligence overseeing or guiding the experiments if so..

Thing is the essence of METAPHYSICAL is in the subconscious for a reason its not just floating thought of nothingness for how then did it get there or how did some or 1 becomes conscious of??? ( it ignites exploration and developmental thinking ) Its like a person one day waking up and describing a color/shape not discussed in current timeframe of understanding and so HOW can they describe a shape / color unlike any shape or lack of any known color but manage to do so where did that come from??

Its because its the essence the unknown to some or KNOWN BY HIGHER ENERGIES. Further outta box using techs to move and place metaphysical aspects of CREATOR Creations and so exits become intra to new dimensions chapters of EXISTENCE as a CREATOR Creation higher or lower ASCENDS. The outside or HIGHER REALMS, hmm 1 feels if its meant to fully be grasp, perhaps in this currents level of awareness it cannot be grasped therefore patience needed, subjectively 1 feels...

Humanity paranormally struggles with parts of it or tries to interpret it in ART- painting S-TORIES etc. So why cannot the essence be part of larger picture of compiled paints...

subjective observations:
As 1 astrals- RVs or High.Self reconnects its felt detected burial lands- monuments dedicated to? this is ESSENCE for even if a species is detected and could be labeled harsh they even respect sending of their ... and that is ESSENCE attributed as the metaphysical consciousness sends them off in good hope and will.

NAMASTE*******

Originally posted by Philodemus
1. Existence exists

This is inaccurate only because it implies that existence can also not exist. Which is untrue. So you might as well have just wrote 'Existence'.

2. To be conscious is to be conscious of something

I don't agree with this. Say my consciousness was floating inside a realm of nothing, yet within that nothingness, somehow, there is sound (assuming that consciousness can hear intrinsically and that sound doesn't need a medium to travel through). Right now my consciousness is witnessing that sound, and that sound alone. If the sound ceased, my consciousness didn't cease as well... it's still there, just not having an experience.

3. A=A

What everyone else said.

Originally posted by Philodemus
I am sorry if this OP is short on content. It is my hope that the conversation can go organically.

What are the implications of the following axioms?

1. Existence exists
2. To be conscious is to be conscious of something
3. A=A

Can these be considered objectively irrefutable, irreducible, and self-evident? If not, why not? If so, what does this mean for our epistemology and our theory of concepts?

I deleted my reply.

reply coming tonight, sorry it's taking so long.

Originally posted by Philodemus
Existence exists

Existence appears to exist.
Emptiness is forming but is never formed into a solid thing - like a flowing river.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by Philodemus

 

1. Existence exists

Does flight fly? Does sight see? Does a swim swim? Does a fight fight? Does a kiss kiss?

There is only the happening - flying, seeing, swimming, kissing.

Originally posted by Philodemus

To be conscious is to be conscious of something

There is always an appearance. Have you known a time when there is not an appearance?
The only time you know there is an appearance is presently.
Presence is all there is. What is appearing presently is the present appearance (eternally changing always presently).

There are no 'things' - there is only ever the present happening (appearance).

reply to post by Itisnowagain


"There are no 'things' - there is only ever the present happening (appearance)."

Semantics, appearance relates to identifying a thing in fact.

Further, moments are infinite and with respect to Spooky action at a distance really fascinating.

Any thoughts?

Than you all for stopping by to comment and share your thoughts on the OP. Already I see that this topic has brought me a few of the more rational minds here on ATS. So, as I promised I would, I would like to respond “en mass” to all of your comments up to and including the reply by Harry.

As you mentioned in your reply, NorEaster, for as connected to our conceptual method of thought and our linguistics are, there is still ample room for the decomposition of ideas when attempting to communicate our thoughts with other people. It never ceases to amaze me how reliant we are on metaphorical language and to just what depth this dependance reaches, both in our language and our thought process. However, as this topic has been discussed since the days of Aristotle and Plato all the way up to present times, it is still with absolute faith that I place my confidence in the heuristic value of metaphor so long as we guard ourselves appropriately.

On this note, I am very glad that many of you brought forth the issues you took with the semantics and syntax of the axioms as I found them and then proposed you. However, it is my impression that perhaps a few words are not enough to convey the actual intent of the statements, as such. So, I will elucidate precisely the conceptual nature of the three statements as I have come to understand them and we can go from there.

1. “Existence exists”: The main idea that this “statement” is intended to make is that existence (being the sum total of all existants in the universe [and reciprocally, the universe being the sum total of all existants] in fact exists, rather than, as Harry pointed out, NOT existing. More plainly it is to say, “that there are things and they exist”.
This does seem to be a redundancy and is, from a topical inspection, misstated in the form of a two word sentence, but its intent is to separate real physical existence from a supernatural or imperceptible one (a la, “The Matrix” or some other imaginary interpretation where reality exists only in the “mind” of some all powerful consciousness).
It is also a partial recognition of that fact that there are things and that they exist independent of consciousness. Partial, because none of the three statements are independent of the others and to appreciate them all they must work in concord. Specifically to the case here, 1 must work with 2 definitively.
As obvious as a fact as this is initially pointing out, according to Objectivism, it must be stated as such for the thinker to express the most basic understanding of any particular object or collection of objects. Yes, Harry, as I understand it, it is a choice between existing or not existing.
2. “To be conscious is to be conscious of something”: The odd subject/predicate relationship here is again problematic, as pointed out by LesMisanthrope, I believe. (I am composing this reply away from the internet right now and only took a few brief notes on the comments made, so I apologize if I make a mistake on the exact nature of who said what and how.) But from what I gather, this is really where the “rubber meets the road” for beginning to build a proper understanding of reality according to Objectivism.
The intent of this statement is mulit-pronged. First, it attempts to establish the nature of consciousness by implying a denial of it's opposite. Harry conducted a thought experiment where his consciousness was “floating in a realm of nothingness” but where said consciousness was still able to “hear” something. But there in lies the rub. If we are to posit such a possibility, would we not have to explain by what means a consciousness would be able to hear? Hearing is a definitively physical sense modality and there is nothing, beyond our imaginations, that would give us cause to think that a) a disembodied consciousness could even exist and b) that such a consciousness would be able to perceive anything external to itself primarily due to the fact that perception is fed by the senses and the senses are an intrinsically physical function. I simply can not accept the hypotheticals that Harry posited (to assume that conscious can hear intrinsically and that sound doesn't need a medium) so, another problem that such a scenario creates is the issue of how this “sound” reached his consciousness if he is indeed floating in “nothing”. Now, not only do we have to explain an imaginary disembodied consciousness and the imaginary mechanism by which the consciousness is able to perceive “sound” but we also have to account for the imaginary source of the imaginary sound, as well as the imaginary agent of the imaginary sound. Also, once the imaginary sound entered the imaginary “nothingness” how does it stop? In Harry's scenario, he says it ends but where does it go? Once it enters the imaginary nothingness the nothingness would cease to be nothingness and it would then be Harry's consciousness plus the sound. And since we are playing make believe, what's to stop us from imagining Harry with more than just imaginary ears? Why would it be impossible for him to have eyes? Or a nose? Or a tongue? For that matter, we could imagine just about anything. I could imagine Harry with all five of the physical sense modalities, plus another 104 that I can't even express or explain. What's to stop our imagination? For an entity to claim consciousness, he must use an external point of reference. If there is something for him to be aware of, then there are things. If there are things, there is existence (existence being the sum total of “things”). Also, what does it mean to exist without experience? Are you still thinking about the sound you heard? If so, where are you storing these memories? Do not all of these mental functions, as we know them, involve a brain? Is there such a thing as a non-physical brain? How would a non-physical brain be differentiated from the rest of your consciousness? If they are distinct from one another (as the rest of our physical bodies are from the actual organ “brain”) would not the non-physical brain constitute an object, albeit and immaterial one? If it is, then how are you in a realm of nothing when their exists both the entity “consciousness” and immaterial “brain” and a “sound”? If I am conscious of nothing (thus unconscious) and without physical body, from where does my unconsciousness arise? By what means do we acquire knowledge of its nature? Have we observed disembodied unconscious consciousness? Is that idea a little conflicted to begin with? So many questions.... All of that is fun, but what does the thought experiment about unknown forms of consciousness really tell us about OUR consciousness?
So, what this statement does is limit our imaginations to the physical universe that is full of physical objects. It makes us stay away from the realm of imaginary and stick to what our senses (our only means of perception) provide for us. To be conscious entails that you are aware of objects around you. Since the only objects we know to exists, exist here, in this reality, such a concept puts our consciousness squarely in the realm of “the real”.
From what I have gathered, the next thing this statement does is set up the subject/object relationship; the consciousness in question is the subject and the rest of reality being the objects. What this does is set the stage for establishing the primacy of existence. This basic understanding of the relationship between subject and object is fundamental if we want to posit that our consciousness does not hold metaphysical primacy over existence. In other words, if I want to say that my conscious intent alone can not change the facts of reality on a whim, then I must agree that I am subject to existence.
There are other ways it ties back to existence, but for the sake of time and hearing what you all have to say, I'll move on.
3. “A=A”; From what I've read, the intent of this statement all across philosophy is simply the law of identity. If I observe a tree is it accurate to say that that tree no longer exists in the following second, merely because it has moved through time or changed on a sub-atomic level? Didn't Nietzsche use something similar to this to say that you can never punish the man who did the crime?
What is the problem with stating that a thing is a thing itself and not any other thing? I really do not see an issue with identification. If the tree which I am observing will not exist in one second, will it cease to exist in half of a second? How about a millisecond? Does the change from my tree to a different tree happen in a nanosecond? Or half of that? Or a billionth of that half? Troubles.
What we need to be aware of is the fact there is a difference in the source of our knowledge (empirical data) and the means by which we integrate it into our conceptual thought process (reason). This, as far as I can tell, is the issue of A not being A. Once its attributes pass through our senses and perceptions and into our mental conceptual integration, it is of course, no longer the A that exists independently from us. How could it be? A will always be A itself. But the mental unit A, is not the A itself. The complete and total identity of A doesn't really change because our definition of A is one that includes all the ways that it can change. This is conceptual reasoning. And if it were to change in a way we did not predict we would merely expand and improve our conceptualization of it to fit the facts we discover.

Well, I was planning on wrapping this up with some closing comments but I've just absolutely run out of time. So, good luck everyone. I'll be by to see what you all have to say at some point! Thank you again for your contributions!

In Humanity,
Daniel

This is only a very rough view as I have come to understand it in the past few weeks. Please feel free to look through the exhaustive archive at here

Just a question...

Is it possible to multiply infinities? Have you ever heard of a Dirac delta function?

reply to post by Kashai


No, because infinity isn't a number. Just a concept that we use to describe limitlessness.

reply to post by HarryTZ


www.fen.bilkent.edu.tr...

Any thoughts?

reply to post by Kashai


I got nothin. lol

reply to post by HarryTZ


Given infinity exist and in relation to math it should be subject to the idea it can be multiplied and divided.

And it is.

reply to post by Kashai


But infinity is infinity. It's an unchanging variable. Finite operations don't apply to infinite values.