I think your metaphysics has other issues, but that still doesn't create a problem in this case, because even if the imagined universe is part of the larger universe it's still not identical to the larger universe, and while the larger "real" universe has minds my imagined universe does not.

Any imagined universe requires a universe with minds, because imagining cannot be done without a mind.

Your "imagined universe without minds" is absurd without the assumption of the existence of minds, as imaginations cannot exist apart from minds!

You must assume the existence of mind to imagine anything!

You're still equivocating between the universe in which I am imagining things and the imagined universe, which does not contain minds.

(This should be apparent in the way you've substituted the word "requires". So I agree that it "requires" a mind to imagine a universe, but that is different from the original statement #1, and equivalent to statement #2, which is exactly what I'm pointing out when I say you're equivocating between them. If you go back to the origin of this little sidebar it had to do with the relationships between things like chairs and chair legs, and whether one could imagine a chair without legs, or a universe without minds. It's the properties of the imagined object which matter here, not the process by which imagination occurs)

A proof of immortality: can I imagine a time when I'm dead. No, because in order to imagine myself dead, I must be alive to do the imagining.

A flaw here is that it is not necessary that I imagine myself dead in order to be dead. Similarly, it is not necessary that I imagine the universe to be without a mind in order for it to be without a mind. The result of D0DN's argument given his assumptions is not that I can't die or that the universe necessarily has a mind, but rather that there is a whole bunch of possible states of the universe that we can't imagine. That is, it is possible that I die, but I can't imagine this, and it is possible that there is no mind in the universe, but I can't imagine this either.

D0DN wants to bring the observer/reasoner as a necessary part of any premise, while keeping the universality of a conclusion without that observer/reasoner. You don't get both though. You can claim that a mind is necessary to imagine a universe, but it doesn't logically follow that the mind is necessary to a universe. Similarly, you can claim that it is necessary for me to imagine myself dead that I be alive, but it doesn't logically follow that it is necessary that to be dead I must be alive.

It also requires a universe with minds to imagine anything, so attempting to imagine a universe without them begs the question.

The property is inseparable from the process in this case.

I see your point, but I also think even the more limited conclusion ("I can't imagine a universe without minds") is false. I think I can even imagine that I am dead. I can imagine people going to my funeral, saying nice things about me, and so on. I don't think his assumptions lead to the conclusion that I am unable to do so.

Sure, I agree it's false, but granting a false premise and showing that it still doesn't lead to a desired conclusion requires less change to the background beliefs of the person you're arguing with.

fair point

Similar I guess, but it's more that a mind cannot imagine what it would be like to not exist. Without a mind, imaginations of anything are impossible, as imaginations are a function of the mind, so imaginations of non-existence both require the mind to exist and not exist; an impossibility.

Similarly, imagining a universe without minds requires both the existence of minds and the nonexistence of minds; an impossibility.

It's impossible to imagine yourself dead.

It's impossible to imagine the universe without a mind.

Not that we can't imagine, that its impossible to imagine.

Correct, it's impossible to imagine it.

No. The universality of the conclusion follows from the universality of the premise. What you cant do is assume premises where minds dont exist, because it is impossible to assume premises without a mind!

An imaginative universe is a strange, wonderful being.

Here let's try this proof Let's assume you can imagine a universe without minds. To imagine a universe without minds is to imagine it without your own mind. Since imaginations exist in your mind, if your own mind doesnt exist then neither can its imaginations. Therefore, the assumption that you can imagine a universe without minds is false.

Possibility is not the same thing as conceivability. Possibility has to do with the limitations of the universe, conceivability has to do with the limitations of our minds. Your argument is that we can't conceive of a universe without a mind, but that doesn't mean that it isn't possible for the universe to exist without a mind, just that we can't conceive of that universe. For other examples, think of the various claims of negative theology.

This is still just the same equivocation between "imagine it as existing without your mind contained within it" and "imagine it without using your mind".

That's a bold claim, that aspects of the universe are inconceivable. It undercuts the fundamental assumption of science, for one.

It's a much bolder claim that the universe is ultimately unintelligible than that the universe is perceptual/mental by nature.

This is clearly invalid for the reason well named has already stated. The universe I'm imagining when I imagine a universe without minds is not the same universe as the universe we live in right now.

What's the point of talking about universes that don't exist?

To make claims about what is or is not possible.

Properties of universes that don't exist have no bearing on the universe that does.

Yes, many philosophers believe that modal claims have no truth value. Is that your claim as well?

It is valid, because any imagination of any other universe is still necessarily part of this universe. You're begging the question.

No one said they did, but remember we reached this cul-de-sac by starting here:

In other words, you were rejecting an argument on the basis that supposedly it's necessarily true that a universe has minds. The word necessary is itself a reference to possibility, usually understood in terms of possible or conceivable universes. It is also not necessary true that a universe has minds, so your counter-argument fails.

Listen, to claim something is possible apart from the universe we inhabit is to claim that something can exist apart from the universe we inhabit. Even your conception of anything "outside" the universe is contained within it!

OrP just said that very thing, that imagining universes that dont exist gives us truth about what does.



It is necessarily true because arguing against it is to argue against arguing. See the proof. This universe must contain minds. Any conception of a universe without minds, which I've already shown is impossible, would still be part of this universe.

You cant conceive of other universes existing without this universe. To attempt to do so simply begs the question.

The conclusions are that this universe must exist and minds must exist in this universe. Even if conceptions of other universes, without minds, was logically possible itd still depend on the universe that contains minds.

How?

How?



Do we need to go into your definition of "real" or "exist"?

They exist, as conceptions, which are in minds, which are in the universe-->they are real, they are part of the universe (all that is real), and the universe as it is is definitionally dependent as all that it contains



As above



Briefly, probably the same as anyone else. The universe is all that and only that which is real. Conceptions are real and exist, in the mind, minds exist in the universe, and the universe is defined as all that it contains (all that is real).