Search

Ideas that are…

Search ideas

@knut-sondre-saebo, you write in the explanation for this revision:

I think the the law of excluded middle is more a property or constraint of existence, rather than a cause. Since we can treat universe as being something as a given, the reason it can't be something else is because the law of excluded middle constrains it to be what it is.

Revision explanations are meant to be short, eg ‘Fixed typo’ or ‘Clarified x’. Since the quote above contradicts #521, it might be worth submitting it as a criticism of #521, or as a separate idea. It doesn’t really work as a revision because revisions are for incremental changes, not for introducing contradictions.

#1211 · Dennis Hackethal, about 7 hours ago · Criticism

There is a similar (identical?) theory put forward by Marc Lewis in The Biology of Desire. He explains addiction as the process of "reciprocal narrowing". The process of reciprocal narrowing does not remove conflicting desires, but instead reinforces a pattern of dealing with conflict through a progressively narrower, habitual response (substance, action, mental dissociation). Addiction, therefore, as you suggested, is a process of managing the "conflict between two or more preferences within the mind."

#1210 · Dennis Hackethal, about 7 hours ago · revision of #1197

💯

#1209 · Dennis Hackethal, about 7 hours ago

I do think the whole mind is a program (or programs).

#1208 · Dennis Hackethal, about 7 hours ago · Criticism

When you make a revision to address a criticism, be sure to uncheck the corresponding criticism in the revision form, section “Do the comments still apply?”. That way, #1134 won’t show up anymore.

#1207 · Dennis Hackethal, about 7 hours ago · Criticism

In #1189, yes, but then you reverted it in #1192.

#1206 · Dennis Hackethal, about 7 hours ago · Criticism

Superseded by #1204. This comment was generated automatically.

#1205 · Dennis Hackethal, about 7 hours ago · Criticism

I agree that nothingness as an object makes no sense.

Regarding nothingness as a quantifier: if you removed all objects except for the universe itself, then the universe remains as an object. So then the set of all objects wouldn’t be empty. So even as a quantifier, nothingness doesn’t seem to work. At least when it refers to all of existence.

Or am I missing something?

#1204 · Dennis Hackethal, about 7 hours ago · revision of #1203 · Criticism

I agree that nothingness as an object makes no sense.

Regarding nothingness as a quantifier: if you removed all objects except for the universe itself, then the universe remains as an object. So then the set of all objects wouldn’t be empty. So even as a quantifier, nothingness doesn’t seem to work.

Or am I missing something?

#1203 · Dennis Hackethal, about 7 hours ago · CriticismCriticized1 criticim(s)

[…] it’s the fact that the law of the excluded middle that constrains the universe to exist.

That isn’t a sentence.

#1202 · Dennis Hackethal, about 8 hours ago · Criticism

Knut has fixed the typo. @knut-sondre-saebo, be sure to check off addressed criticisms when you revise an idea. Underneath the revision form, there’s a list of criticisms that you can check and uncheck.

#1201 · Dennis Hackethal, about 8 hours ago · Criticism

Superseded by #1199. This comment was generated automatically.

#1200 · Dennis Hackethal, about 8 hours ago · Criticism

Nothingness as a quantifier, is the concept of a universe with no objects. This doesn't have any inherent contradictions in classical logic. It would simply be a world where all objects are subtracted, as in an empty set.

Wouldn’t the universe itself be an object, as would the set itself, so you’d never have an empty set anyway?

#1199 · Dennis Hackethal, about 8 hours ago · revision of #1131 · Criticism

The quote is now outdated.

#1198 · Dennis Hackethal, about 8 hours ago · Criticism

There is a similar (identical?) theory put forward by Marc Lewis in Biology of desire. He explains addiction as the process of "reciprocal narrowing". The process of reciprocal narrowing does not remove conflicting desires, but instead reinforces a pattern of dealing with conflict through a progressively narrower, habitual response (substance, action, mental dissociation). Addiction, therefore, as you suggested, is a process of managing the "conflict between two or more preferences within the mind.

#1197 · Knut Sondre Sæbø, about 16 hours ago

I think this explanation holds if you assume the law of the excluded middle is true. The only remaining criticism I can see, is if you throw out the law of the excluded middle (like paraconsistent- and intutionist logic.)

#1196 · Knut Sondre Sæbø, about 16 hours ago

Logical possibilities and possible world frameworks, only works for potential states "inside" the universe right? The state of there being something or nothing in the universe doesn't have a "causal start", because the fact of something existing is an "eternal property" of the universe.

#1195 · Knut Sondre Sæbø, about 16 hours ago · Criticism

What do you think of: it’s the fact that the law of the excluded middle that constrains the universe to exist. Nothing can’t exist, so the only alternative that’s left is for something to exist.

#1194 · Knut Sondre Sæbø, about 17 hours ago · revision of #521 · Criticized2 criticim(s)

A useful distinction in talking of non-existence and nothingness is nothingness as a quantifier and nothingness as an object. Nothingness as a quantifier, is the concept of a universe with no objects. This doesn't have any inherent contradictions in classical logic. It would simply be a world where all objects are subtracted, as in an empty set.

Nothing as an object is inherently paradoxical. Nothingness as an object is something without properties, but paradoxically therefore has the properties of at least:
1. Immutability: it can't change, because change requires something
2. Boundarylessness
3. Indeterminacy: undefined, without qualities

I kind of relate to Graham Priest in that existence and non-existence is dependent on each other - kind of like the ying-yang symbol. For something to "be", it must be distinguished from "not-being". It might therefore not really be a resolution to the problem. Just like the rabbit in the rabbit-duck illusion is dependent on the shape of the duck, non-existence is dependent on existence.

#1193 · Knut Sondre Sæbø, about 17 hours ago · revision of #1126 · Criticized1 criticim(s)

Wouldn't the more correct framing be the mind has automatic programs and consciousness? In other words the mind has a dual process of explicit thoughts and conscious reflection and ingrained habits or "mental programs" on the other.

#1192 · Knut Sondre Sæbø, about 17 hours ago · revision of #1128 · Criticized2 criticim(s)

I misread your text. I originally read it as the whole mind is a program (or programs).

#1191 · Knut Sondre Sæbø, about 17 hours ago · Criticized1 criticim(s)

Fixed

#1190 · Knut Sondre Sæbø, about 19 hours ago · Criticized2 criticim(s)

Wouldn't the more correct framing be the mind has automatic programs and consciousness? In other words, the mind has a dual process of explicit thoughts and conscious reflection on the one hand, and ingrained habits or "mental programs" on the other.

#1189 · Knut Sondre Sæbø, about 19 hours ago · revision of #1128 · CriticismCriticized2 criticim(s)

If we talk about the quantifier nothing, you would look at the universe = all objects. So if you remove all objects the universe wouldn’t really «refer» to anything. But if you believe there exist such a thing as the object Nothingness, there could possibly exist a universe = Nothingness (as the object), which has some defined properties.

#1156 · Knut Sondre Sæbø, 1 day ago · CriticismCriticized1 criticim(s)

Workaround: have users email me for password reset for now. Re-evaluate when I have enough users to merit additional infrastructure for sending emails.

#1136 · Dennis Hackethal, 12 days ago · Criticism