And again, we've devolved into you being unable to formulate any better response than simply repeating (within your own post!) that someone else is wrong. You haven't addressed the content in any meaningful way. You are advised to start doing that.

Why?


Why important for the all-in-one to be one-in-all?

In this case, that's all there is to say and there's nothing more to say. I've explained that

1) You're using the phrase "distinct from" in a way that doesn't make sense.
2) You're using the phrase "contingent upon" in a way that doesn't make sense.
3) The claim that "If a part of the universe has a property then the universe has that property" is false.
4) Claiming that "reality is all that is real" and that "all possible states are real states" creates a framework in which one cannot meaningfully make claims as simple as the outcome of a coin flip.

I've also highlighted the following problems, but have no reason to expand on them at this time:

A) Claiming that "reality includes all future states" is problematic without accepting a form of strong determinism.
B) You suck at mathematical notation and verbiage.
C) Properties are not "contained by" the universe.
D) The claim that "If [potential states] are not real, then this is the only possible universe" is far from obvious and very likely false.

Good luck with whatever else you're going to try to do in this thread. I'm mostly going to be here to mock.

If the universe is all there is it cant contain its own properties. The universe would have to be a subset of something else to have properties that map to it, just like the properties of those things in the universe are contained by the universe.

The only possible alternative is if the universe both contains and is contained in some way by its contents.

Ergo, the universe topologically contains that which descriptively contains that which......

The property of self awareness is both contained topologically by the universe (in us, the instantiations of self awareness) and descriptively by us (consciousness containing it). By us I mean conscious beings, not necessarily humans. The meaning of the word topologically here is: The underlying structure that gives rise to such properties for a given figure or space

I have a B.A. in Philosophy from an accredited university here in the United States, and I can't make any sense of what DoOrDoNot is saying. And I have no idea if that speaks poorly of me or him.

This thread is an example of Poe's law

Therefore, The 2+2 Forums are an example of Poe's law.

And, possibly, the entire universe.

Not a creationist argument. I actually meant to post this in SMP

I thought yesterday it seemed like it ought to be an SMP thread. But also when I refer to Poe's Law I'm not referring to creationism specifically. The term has a broader usage now. Basically just "it's impossible to create a parody so exaggerated that it can't be mistaken for a sincere expression of the parodied views", to paraphrase Le Wiki.

Ah ok. Itd definitely be hard to parody a view this basic.

I'm too stupid to post in this thread.

Therefore, the universe is too stupid to post in this thread.

No. That is not what I'm saying. Here I'll try it again

The properties of that contained in the universe (everything) are mapped onto those objects by the properties of the universe (laws of logic, laws of thermodynamics etc). Everyone with me so far?

So what maps the properties of the universe onto the universe itself (where does it get its properties from)? There are two possibilities.

1) something exterior to but containing the properties of the universe maps onto the universe, or,
2) the universe gets its laws from itself

1) is simply an infinite regress, because if something contains the universe and maps its laws onto it, something must contain that and so on ad infinitum. In other words, a logical paradox


The way to resolve this paradox is for the universe to get its properties from itself. Everything contained within it must also contain the universe. But how can this be? Obviously an apple doesnt contain the universe, the universe contains the apple.

The answer is to split containment into two aspects: topological and descriptive. As mentioned before, topological means *the underlying structure that gives rise to such properties for a given figure or space and descriptive means assigning a quality rather than restricting the application of the expression modified . So the universe as a whole has an underlying structure that gives rise to properties for given figures and spaces (objects, gravity, quanta, etc) but the objects it contains and the contents of the universe assign their properties to it and vice versa. The universe is in sort of a reflexive relationship with itself. Just like the laws of logic, the universe is a tautology.

Since one of the properties the universe is assigned by its contents is self-awareness, the universe is self-aware.

Sounds like half-assed pantheism.

An organism and it’s ecosystem are inseparable. An organism is it’s ecosystem and that ecosystem is it’s organisms. The universe is our ecosystem. We are it, and it includes what we are organizationally. We always belong in the universe.

The only way I can determine a cheetah can change it’s spots is to reproduce or die. Unless some human-type paints one. Or they shed.

A good analogy. If you zoom out and look at the organism-ecosystem relationship, it is both created by and mirrored by the universe.

Is it possible that the Fallacy of Composition is being committed here?

The Composition Fallacy occurs when one deduces, without sufficient justification, that what is true of a part of a whole necessarily is true of the whole itself.

So, I guess the question is, has the OP offered sufficient justification for the claim that what is true for a part of the universe (in this case, self-awareness) true of the whole universe?

I haven't claimed that. What I've claimed and given logical justification for is, crudely: the universe creates itself, using properties of itself, which it gets from itself; the universe must be defined as this relationship.

Really?

Chair legs are part of the chair.
Chair legs have properties.
Properties of parts of the chair are properties of the chair.
Chair legs are made of wood.

Conclusion: The chair is made of wood.

My question, maybe through better phrasing, asks about the implications.

Why does it matter that the universe is how way you've described it?

It means that any reasoning you do based on the presumption that you are distinct from the universe as a whole is incomplete at best and false otherwise.

.

The OP very straightforwardly commits it, as was pointed out immediately by OrP.

The latest version doesn't do so (or at least not straightforwardly, I haven't thought about it much), but seems very different from the first version. It also seems kind of muddled to me, but I'm not sure what the point is really supposed to be. Hopefully the point is that we should abandon substance ontologies :P

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/topologic

Notice that saying a doughnut and a picture frame have the same topology does not imply that a doughnut and a picture frame are the same thing.

They are not descriptively the same thing, but they are both expressions of the underlying structure of the universe.

Both the picture frame and the donut have unique properties that describe the underlying properties of the universe.

How the hell else do we find out anything about the universe, but by analyzing the properties of objects contained within it?
This is really basic but it requires a bit of a paradigm shift and letting go of the common presumption of seeing things distinctively instead of holistically.

The whole universe isn’t known as separated by locality, as a whole including that which organizes it wholly. The whole universe is necessarily every multitude which comprises it’s whole. Aware, unaware, whatever may be beyond and in between. So the fallacy finder has to justify how the whole is whole while it’s not one of it’s parts.

What’s funny is this is trivial. Of course the whole includes that which compromises it’s whole whether those parts are knowable or a mystery. Or whatever.

So what the universe is self aware? It’s also cruel. But as well is courageous. And nurturing It’s a dang rabbit whole. That’s a real fallacy. Parsing out a whole universe into parts that don’t at least reflect the whole.

Alas, you are correct. The converse of the fallacy of composition is the logical necessity of composition, which you have so eloquently put here.

Trivial and basic, but still requires a shift in thinking because people so often make two mistakes. The first is that they eliminate themselves as distinct from the universe when making claims or thinking about the universe. The second mistake is that they consider the universe as "the set of all things" but dont realize if its not a self sufficient and organizing entity of it's own that it logically must be a subset of something else. Self awareness of the universe is necessarily a property of it. If it wasnt aware of itself, how would it maintain its consistency? How would it create itself? How would it maintain the uniformity of its underlying structure? It does so by monitoring the objects within it, and they describe back what it is, like a mirror. For this reason it must be self aware.

The nature of man is reflected in the nature of the universe. It creates and nurtures, but also callously destroys.