Part of the universe = whole of the universe?

Part of an ecosystem = whole of an ecosystem?

Generally the goal in logic is make language more, not less precise, so I wouldn't say it's equivalent to "undermining logic." Most philosophers believe that the law of noncontradiction is necessarily true, and by this they mean that in all possible worlds it is true, not that logic would be undermined if it wasn't true. That is perhaps a corollary, but too imprecise to function as a semantics of logical modality.
Nope. There is a possible world where I don't exist according to the definition of logical necessity given above. Your own account of language rejects counterfactual reasoning which is why you don't think this is possible and also why you use such a squirelly definition of logical necessity.

Interesting. How are you able to determine this possible world without your cognition?


My account of language rejects counterlogical reasoning, not counterfactual. I can imagine a universe without you. You cannot imagine a universe without yourself, because the act of imagining is dependent on your imagination, which depends on the existence of your mind. It is therefore necessarily true that any of your imaginations of anything, including logically possible universes, require you as an imaginer.

In a way ya. The ecosystem wouldnt be the ecosystem as it is defined without all of the parts that define it.

Not interested in going through another round of this with you - I'm not going to be any clearer in explaining where I think you go wrong than I've already been.

I can conceive of a world without me. I just can't conceive of my conceiving of a world without me.

Me: how does this prove that consciousness is a fundamental part of the universe

You: because consciousness is a fundamental part of the universe

You are just saying the same thing with different order of words. you need to show how we are a fundamental part of the universe. Just saying it over and over is not enough.

And yet, when I asked you for a definition of the term you were you using, you explicitly picked the definition that applies specifically and uniquely to mathematics. And here, the "properties of connectedness and continuity" are explicitly mathematical properties.

Consciousness is a fundamental aspect of the universe because you are a fundamental aspect of what it means to be the universe in its only defined form (the form it has). It is logically necessary that the universe is described as containing consciousness, because to describe it as not containing consciousness is to describe a universe that doesn't exist.

Implying mathematics is ontologically separate from the universe it instantiates in

If you can't conceive of your conceiving of it, whence is the conception of it?

In other words, if you really weren't in a universe conceived, how would you have access to conceptions of such a world?

Conceptions of universes without you are still dependent upon the actual, real existence of your mind. So you're not really conceiving universes that don't contain you.

I can conceive a universe without you, because my conceptions aren't dependent on the existence of your brain. But I cannot logically conceive of a universe that does not contain myself. Logic and conception is ontologically dependent on a logician and conceiver, namely, me. No logician, no logic. No conceiver, no conception. A universe without me as a percipient necessarily excludes me from it, including anything dependent on me as related to said universe (my imaginations of it).

I dont know what this means.

The universe is defined as the collection of all the universe contains. That's what the universe is. Now take a general look at the universe as it is. You will see the universe contains consciousness (you, me, other humans, lower forms like dogs and cats and moose and geese). If you attempt to remove the consciousness that the universe contains from the universe that contains it (the real universe we all inhabit), you necessarily change what it means to be the universe. Thus, consciousness is a fundamental aspect of, and what it means to be, the universe.

I've attempted multiple ways to show you why you are misled about that which you think I'm wrong about.

Counterfactuals that are logically inconsistent are useless, because they don't conform to the logical syntax that precludes things being intelligible.

Imaging a possible universe where you do not exist is logically impossible, because any imagination is dependent upon your real existence as an imaginer. To imagine yourself dead or nonexistent is like imagining a square circle. In order to genuinely imagine yourself nonexistent you have to include within that imagination the nonexistence of your brain. Whoops! No more imaginations!

You're not imaging a real, possible counterfactual that would render moot the point that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of the universe. What you're really doing is attempting to imagine an impossible universe, and such a thing cannot be done.

Simply repeating your same arguments, making the same obvious mistake of not distinguishing between the act of thinking that p and p itself is no more convincing now than it has ever been.

The universe which imagines is not the imagined universe

Does this not also apply to a rock, an atom, an amoeba, an electron, etc?

That's one too many for a good joke intro. Maybe just "A rock, an atom, and an amoeba walk into a bar"

The bartender serves the universe a drink?

I dunno it needs work.

No. It implies that technical language used in technical ways has zero implication on non-technical understandings. That's like saying the mathematical concept of "divisibility" somehow means that you can break apart a cabbage into individual leaves.

When you say "continuity" you are invoking epsilons, deltas, and the real line. And trust me, you do *NOT* want to invoke the real line here.

You heard it here folks, math doesn't correspond to reality in any meaningful way.

The problem is that the mutual domain of logical consistency that both the thought of p and the p thought must share to render intelligibility is your mind. You are positing that it's possible to think an unthought thought. I think you can probably see the problem with this.

Imagining yourself nonexistent is no different. In order to imagine a state where you don't exist, you necessarily presume your own existence to think the thought. So you are attempting to think of yourself not thinking. That is plain rubbish.

LOL -- It fits in perfectly with your all-or-nothing rhetoric that you would be absolutely blind to the philosophy of mathematics. It's an area of open discussion whether mathematical objects are real (Platonism), whether mathematical language is language *about* other things (nominalism), or whether it's just a useful story but carries literally no truth values (fictionalism).

But very specifically with regards to your attempt to use the mathematical field of "topology" to make some sort of ontological claim about something, show me "the real line" in nature.

I can think of myself as being dead. If I'm dead, I'm not thinking.

I can also conceive of the year 1837, before I was born. If I didn't exist yet, I wasn't thinking yet.

This is not hard to do.

Cliffs, in case anybody's coming in late...

Do0rDoNot: You can't think of a universe where you don't exist.

Forum: I'm thinking of a universe where I don't exist.

D0DN: See, I told you you couldn't do it!

He can think of himself being dead! Tell us, what's it like to be dead?

It's intriguing that you believe you can conceive of the year 1837. I've always wanted to know what the Antebellum world was like; please enlighten us. What was it like?