Philosophical problems are almost always the result of unnecessary and unproven assumptions.

Philosophical problems are almost always the result of unnecessary and unproven assumptions. Consider the famous question: Why does something exist? What this question is really asking is what caused something to exist, which is assuming that causality is a real thing. Let’s see why such an assumption is unnecessary. Suppose that this isn’t true, and that causality is not real at all. Then, anything that exists needs no explanation at all, it simply exists. And there is no contradiction in this. We could even imagine that a world exactly like ours could exist without causality, since there is nothing contradictory about this. Most people assume that this world somehow proves causality, but the logic is quite poor:
>everything seems to have a cause to me, therefore everything has a cause.
You cannot deductively prove that causality is real, of course. All causal relationships you “see” could just be coincidences.

Let’s compare a world without causality, that happens to model our world exactly, to a world with causality, that also models our world exactly. Then there is no difference whatsoever, but one of them somehow has a “law” of causality “existing” somewhere. But how can such abstract laws exist objectively? Where is it, and how does it operate? And if the law exists, then why? Assuming the law exists only complicates things and creates more problems than it solves. Whereas without the assumption, then there is no problem at all. I don’t even need to ask why anything exists. The question is nonsense to me. My life is much simpler without ever having to worry about such useless pursuits.

  1. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Onto a harder problem: the problem of consciousness. The basics of the problem is that it’s difficult to explain how conscious experience arises from non-conscious material. Very few people even pretend to have an answer. Some resort to saying that everything is somehow inherently conscious. Then you have people like Dennett, who think there is no conscious experience at all. Both of these solutions explain away the arising of consciousness by saying there is no arising at all, one by saying everything is conscious, and another by saying nothing is conscious. The huge problem with both of these solutions is that they assume an objective reality outside of subjective experience. This is where the problem truly starts. If you make no such assumption, then what is to be explained? Consciousness does not arise from anything, it simply is. There is no distinguishable difference between the world objectively existing beyond my experience, and only my experience existing. For how can an object be said to exist if it is not experienced? But not only that, how can a subject exist if it is not experiencing? So there is no object or even subject, just experience. Again, it makes no sense to ask how or why this experience “exists,” since this assumes something outside or prior to experience that may explain it.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      How do two protons and two electrons become hydrogen? There's a certain alignment of subatomic particles which come together to produce a molecule which is greater than the sum of its parts, possessing unique qualities which cannot be attributed to protons or electrons alone.

      When it comes to our understanding of consciousness, we are about as close to properly understanding the subject as the medieval alchemists were to perfecting nuclear fusion. My belief is that the best anyone can do at this time is to align themselves with their intuitive/sensory perceptions instead of making yet another futile attempt to dissect the human experience like a neanderthal having a go at open heart surgery.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Even if we developed a working mental model for how consciousness works, it would still be no less true than the alternative model that only consciousness exists and that there is no external reality. This type of solipsism can’t be disproven. It’s always a possibility, and a much simpler one, at that.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      I can show that people write things because they believe in causality, thus, the very attempt to argue against causality is demonstrably undermined and so it can only be argued by hypocrites.

      Consciousness is not a directly biblical term, so it suffers from a lack of a solid grounding as people can mean different things by it. You have to carefully define what you are talking about here.

      >For how can an object be said to exist if it is not experienced?
      Numbers exist in an abstract sense but they are not experienced. 2 and 2 is 4.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >I can show that people write things because they believe in causality, thus, the very attempt to argue against causality is demonstrably undermined and so it can only be argued by hypocrites.
        Then you must believe that a world without causality could not possibly exist exactly as our world, with my writing this post right now. If that is the case, then explain why (good luck). If not, then your point is moot. Even if I am by nature predisposed to think in terms of logic and causal processes, the fact that I come to the conclusion that causality is unnecessary is actually a contradiction of causality, and not the lack of it. You are like those who say that the brain cannot be made of chemicals, since we cannot trust our brains to tell us this. But if it is the case that our brains truly are just chemicals, and it tells us this, then where is the lie? Whereas the chemical brain is actually lying to those who think otherwise

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Then you must believe that a world without causality could not possibly exist exactly as our world
          True. No such thing as a world without causality.

          >the fact that I come to the conclusion that causality is unnecessary is actually a contradiction of causality
          That's what we call a mistake made by a misguided and fallible person. Just as likely they realize their mistake but persist in it for misguided reasons as they are unaware of the contradiction.
          >But if it is the case that our brains truly are just chemicals, and it tells us this, then where is the lie?
          Consciousness is not just material, i.e. matter and energy. We've already shown how things like numbers exist in the abstract sense and have relations to each other. There are immaterial and abstract things as well as spiritual realities, these are things people work with every day - but they cannot be directly measured even though they do tell us about physical reality.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >True. No such thing as a world without causality.
            How do you know?

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              From the definition

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Define causality. Now define non-causality as the negation of causality. So it should look something like this:
                >causality: every effect has a cause
                >non-causality: not every effect has a cause
                So under this definition, some effects don’t have causes. For example, a universe. No contradiction. Try harder.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >non-causality: not every effect has a cause
                What dictionary is this? "Things Pulled Out of Anon's Ass" is not a dictionary that we find credible or even usable.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Feel free to provide your own definition and show that a universe cannot exist without the law of causality.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                I'll meet you halfway.
                Causal means expressing or indicating cause.
                Therefore, if something is NOT causal, then it would NOT be expressing or indicating cause.
                The universe, being bound by space and time, is an example of something that is causal.
                Whatever created the universe, being unbound by space and time, would be an example of something that is non-causal.
                The universe can exist without being caused to exist, the same way that you can exist without having been concieved. You are bound by both space and time, anything bound by space and time must have been caused to exist. There is straightforwardly no other explanation.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The universe, being bound by space and time, is an example of something that is causal.
                now this is an asspull. I thought I made it clear that in a non-causal mode of existence, causal patterns can exist without contradiction. Just because your monkey brain thinks this universe needs cause, doesn’t mean it does. Your whole argument is basically “woah! Look at that! It must have a cause, otherwise I will go insane”

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                This goes back to the fundamental contradiction of trying to use arguments to attack causality. If you believe in the concept of true arguments, not to mention the concept of "good" -- then you've already conceded the point. You're basically making the essential argument: "but what if I'm correct about everything being incorrect?" You can't be correct simply because to be correct on a point has to mean there is such a thing as correct. Therefore its falsity is implicit.

                Define causality. Now define non-causality as the negation of causality. So it should look something like this:
                >causality: every effect has a cause
                >non-causality: not every effect has a cause
                So under this definition, some effects don’t have causes. For example, a universe. No contradiction. Try harder.

                >Define causality.
                The definition of world. The world properly speaking refers to the cosmos. Cosmos means order, regularity, regular disposition. And as it says, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                I never explicitly said truth was objective and real. My main point is that assuming too much leads to more and more problems. It’s just unnecessary. And I won’t actually say that I am definitely correct. I view both alternatives — causality and non-causality— as viable. I merely present the case of the non-causal world to show that it is not so obvious that the world is causal. And of course to ask why the universe exists isn’t necessarily a sensible question, since it assumes causality. If you want to attain peace, or ataraxia, then you will give up this discussion of necessity and causality and so on, because you will never get to the bottom of it.
                >The definition of world. The world properly speaking refers to the cosmos. Cosmos means order, regularity, regular disposition. And as it says, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
                this is just embarrassing, anon. Anyway, there is nothing absurd or contradictory about order appearing though with chaos as its seed. That’s how evolution works. Order from disorder. All of existence can be thought of as evolution. Order is bound to arise at some point. There is nothing to question, there is no problem. Every part of your worldview requires faith, even the “rational” parts

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >That’s how evolution works. Order from disorder.
                They are assuming everything starts with disorder and then working their way back with that assumption to make that assertion. And I have good reasons to know that they are doing this, that they favor this narrative - because of inproper motivations.
                >Anyway, there is nothing absurd or contradictory about order appearing though with chaos as its seed.
                Examples of this always imply a set of ordered laws that are imposed and are acting from some starting point forward. Order, on many different levels, can be imposed through ordered laws. So we've still got an ordered cause behind it all.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >They are assuming everything starts with disorder and then working their way back with that assumption to make that assertion.
                Yeah, that’s kinda the point. We assume something and see where it goes. If it leads to no contradictions or seems plausible then we can’t just ignore it. It’s fun to be open minded and consider strange ideas. You should try it some time.
                >Examples of this always imply a set of ordered laws that are imposed and are acting from some starting point forward.
                No. This is just an example, but if you assume no order at all, but pure disorder and chaos and randomness, then orderly outcomes are just another part of that randomness. It’s like flipping a coin 100 times and getting heads every time. It seems orderly but it isn’t. It’s just improbable. But not impossible. This is just an analogy but it proves the point.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >No. This is just an example, but if you assume no order at all, but pure disorder and chaos and randomness, then orderly outcomes are just another part of that randomness.
                There are implicit rules to the natural world. Everything that is energy or matter follows the physical laws that are imposed from above. So to say that order arises under these conditions "from disorder" is to ignore the fact that the laws of nature are all along being imposed by an order from above. This sequence of ordered causes then proceeds backward from effect to cause.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Natural laws are simply a PATTERN. They are mental constructs that we created to interact with the world. It doesn’t mean those laws are real. Tomorrow we could wake up and gravity could cease to exist, you don’t know. How can you be so arrogant to think you know how the world works? Have you seen the laws of thermodynamics with your own eyes? Where? Can you tell me what a law looks like? Is it written on the particles? Or is it beyond space and time completely? How do you know we aren’t just living in a non-causal world that coincidentally produces causal patterns?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Natural laws are simply a PATTERN.
                I thought you said you viewed different alternatives were viable. Now you're back to saying you know things for sure? What, pray tell, makes you so sure; I mean you admit the fact that I am right isn't out of the question. What is up with that statement?

                >Tomorrow we could wake up and gravity could cease to exist,
                There are always underlying laws, so if we found something that counteracted it that would mean there is another order, similar to how we discovered that EM and nuclear forces are two sides of the same coin in different temporospatial regimes.
                >Can you tell me what a law looks like?
                A law is something that is spelled out in words. We attempt to study and understand the laws as they exist and find the best way to describe them via the familiar scientific method. Our description of the laws in our words is an imperfect attempt to capture or encapsulate the underlying true laws of nature.

                >How do you know we aren’t just living in a non-causal world
                A "world" refers to something with order, regularity, regular disposition. It can't be non-causal because then there wouldn't be any. That's just the definition of what the world, or universe - meaning cosmos - is. What we call natural order is nothing other than that which arises from the whole. Hopefully that makes sense.

                And it can never be stated that nothing is correct or that there is no truth, because in order for that to be a true statement, there would have to be at least one "true" statement, namely itself. But that can't be, so therefore there is truth.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Now you're back to saying you know things for sure?
                They are indeed patterns. Whether or not they are produced by causal laws cannot be proven.
                >And it can never be stated that nothing is correct or that there is no truth, because in order for that to be a true statement, there would have to be at least one "true" statement, namely itself. But that can't be, so therefore there is truth.
                It can be stated that there is no objective truth or reality, since this cuts off all things external to me. Truth exists for me and me alone. But I wouldn’t even say that. I would rather say that I don’t know what truth is, nor do I know if we can apprehend truth. I simply have feelings and appearances and some things make more sense to me than others. But thinking about anything long enough I will realize that I know nothing. I’m not trying to prove anything, just countering your assumptions with alternatives. This is the skeptic way

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >They are indeed patterns. Whether or not they are produced by causal laws cannot be
                But you went on to assert that you think they are mental constructs. It just seems like you are alternating between claiming there is truth and then not.

                >nor do I know if we can apprehend truth
                4 is interchangable with 2 + 2 and with 3 + 1
                >Truth exists for me and me alone.
                It says in Scripture of the Creator:
                "Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Causal laws are mental constructs, yes. You cannot observe a causal law. You derive it from experience, indirectly. It’s not a logical deduction, nor is it directly verified. Perhaps they are real and not just mental constructs. I don’t know, no one does

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Causal laws are mental constructs, yes.
                Yeah, by emphasizing the word "pattern" and "mental constructs" you mean to imply that's all it is. Yet I thought you said there is no such thing as knowing something for sure. What is up with that?
                >You cannot observe a causal law.
                It's possible to read the laws. If you want I can go get my Bible.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Yeah, by emphasizing the word "pattern" and "mental constructs" you mean to imply that's all it is
                This is very simple. We have patterns and mental constructs. We cannot know if they are based in objective truth. Maybe I was talking in a way that would imply they are only patterns, but this is just my way of proposing an equally valid alternative. How could I possibly know which is the case? Though I will say that the simpler model appeals to me. But it’s also possible that causality is somehow at the foundation of existence (either co-existing with God, preceding God, or being created by God (Do you know which is true?)), and that I simply don’t understand reality. Either way I see no point in sticking with one, and I have no reason to lie awake at night torturing myself with such questions.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >We cannot know
                How do you know that we can't know that?
                >How could I possibly know
                How can you KNOW that you can't possibly know? Sorry if it seems like I'm turning the heat on this but it requires emphasizing.

                >Though I will say that the simpler model appeals to me.
                Ah, so you think there are orders of simplicity.
                >But it’s also possible that causality is somehow at the foundation of existence (either co-existing with God, preceding God, or being created by God (Do you know which is true?)
                Everything falls into two classes, either things that have a cause and thus a beginning, or things that don't. The existence of the former class necessitates the latter, and the only entity of the latter class is God. God is, and nothing is imposed on God, everything about God just naturally arises from within - His will, IOW; but created things all have an order imposed on them to some degree. There are different orders of created things, with man being originally made in the image of God, which is a very special attribute.

                >Either way I see no point in sticking with one
                Pursuit of the truth and of good. Like it says in Proverbs,

                "To know wisdom and instruction; to perceive the words of understanding;
                3 To receive the instruction of wisdom, justice, and judgment, and equity;
                4 To give subtilty to the simple, to the young man knowledge and discretion.
                5 A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels:
                6 To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings.
                7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction."
                - Prov. 1

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >How can you KNOW that you can't possibly know?
                Yes you’re right. Now you see it
                >and the only entity of the latter class is God.
                why not everything else as well? If god can be uncaused then why not other things?
                >Pursuit of the truth and of good. Like it says in Proverbs,
                And yet you need faith to believe the “truth.” Admitting one’s ignorance is more honest, and can just easily be considered wise, true, and good.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >If God can be uncaused then why not other things?
                Any other things, no matter what you may specify, all have causes and have various limited capacities. For instance, the natural world has the laws of nature imposed on it, which are rules that it must obey. Human beings who have a free will also are still not able to choose anything, i.e. they are imposed upon in the time and place of their birth, in their sex and so forth. Caused things have order imposed, whereas being uncaused is to not be imposed on by anything.
                >Admitting one’s ignorance is more honest
                You mean in the Socratic sense? Are you looking at Romans 1:18 here or just Psalm 131?

                >be considered wise, true, and good.
                I never said anything about being ~~*considered*~~ those things, I said actual.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                I'm a different guy from the one you were arguing with
                Their point was that there's absolutely no statement about describing physical reality which can be proven absolutely. Our understanding of physical reality is filtered through our imperfect senses, and it's impossible to even gauge how flawed your senses are. You could be a Boltzmann brain and a physical reality with causality doesn't exist. You could be a disembodied consciousness undergoing an infinite series of experiences, and you're just at the part where you think you're talking about philosophy on LULZ. Every physical law we know could be a total, extremely improbable coincidence, and the actual physical laws could just kick in any minute, or there are no actual physical laws and the brief period of time where the universe just did that for 13.7 billion years would come to an end for no reason. You can not prove any of this wrong. It's impossible, they're called unfalsifiable for a reason.
                Obviously this is philosophical masturbation, but I don't need to tell a religious guy that unfalsifiable is not a synonym for false. It would be completely self-contradictory if it was. It's worth keeping in mind that you can't even know whether or not you're a brain in a jar when making huge claims about philosophical or spiritual aspects of reality. Your primitive mind could never comprehend true reality and our human concepts of God will never be anything like what God is actually like.

  2. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    now he's blogging ffs.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      I’m posting like anyone else

  3. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    how do you know an axiom is unnecessary and/or unprovable, by gödel's theorem, you can't

  4. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Long blog post to just "phenomenology."

    Welcome to philosophy 101. We're glad you're excited.

  5. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    literally can’t be argued against. But people will continue to talk about necessary causes and infinite regresses, and ignore the thread that reveals that they’re just wasting their time

  6. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >AXIOMATIC GROUNDING IS PROBLEMATIC
    Why?

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Because the axiom is usually arbitrary, and not necessary. The only axiom I can think of that can’t be questioned is that I have experiences. More precisely, there are experiences.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Isn't that already the foundation of our knowledge? When we were babbies playing with building blocks and learned the raw basics of the laws of physics, for example. None of this is really a mystery or a revelation.

        Rather than questioning the material world, one needs to get more metaphysical and ask why anything exists at all, but certain people dislike this line of questioning for obvious reasons.

  7. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    All human thought is the result of unproven assumptions.

  8. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    "I don't know."

  9. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    A: god is good.
    enda question am i right.
    next?

Your email address will not be published.