Necessary Thing

[Ignorant]

I was thinking of the simple case that everything that exists is made of energy, and if any amount of energy got destroyed, all energy ceases to exist. Now that's a fictional scenario, of course, similar to what I was drivelling on about previously. But it's logically consistent with reality as we observe it. And then everything remains contingent on everything else.

I'm not suggesting energy can actually be destroyed, but in this hypothetical scenario, it can. We just don't know how yet. Further research needed boffins!

Great! So for you, there IS a thing which exists without the condition that something else exists. For you, it makes good rational sense that there must be some thing that just exists of itself, IT is its own explanation, its own condition, necessary being. Thanks for all of your input! Whether its energy or not, for you it makes sense that something like it must exist.

[robvalue]

You're welcome.

I'm not saying I believe any of what I just said is actually the case, I was making up scenarios.

You could just as easily have an infinite number of different "things", all of which rely on each other for their existence, then there is no one single "thing" that isn't contingent on something else.

Unless you just group everything together and call it one entity, but that kind of defeats the whole purpose of the exercise. Calling everything one thing doesn't make it one thing.

If you go that route, then by definition "everything" can't depend on anything else, because there isn't anything else. But that's just word games.

I must say, this has been way more interesting than most debates I have with theists, thank you. Mostly they try and tell me what I believe, and just just talk nonsense until I get fed up. Then they declare victory.

[Ignorant]

You're welcome...

... You could just as easily have an infinite number of different "things", all of which rely on each other for their existence, then there is no one single "thing" that isn't contingent on something else ...

... I must say, this has been way more interesting than most debates I have with theists, thank you. Mostly they try and tell me what I believe, and just just talk nonsense until I get fed up. Then they declare victory.

I have enjoyed it as well, so thanks again!

Can you help me understand the bolded part? That is something I don't find to be logically possible. What makes you think it is possible to have an infinite number of different things, all mutually dependent (i.e. mutually conditional upon) on each other's existence? <= This is my difficulty.

Maybe a new thread dedicated to that question?

[robvalue]

No problem

I didn't say it was possible. I'm saying it's not logically inconsistent. If we're speculating beyond what we can observe and test, the only requirements is consistency with reality, yes?

[Ignorant]

No problem

I didn't say it was possible. I'm saying it's not logically inconsistent. If we're speculating beyond what we can observe and test, the only requirements is consistency with reality, yes?

I don't understand the difference between logical possibility and "not logically inconsistent". Can you start there?

[robvalue]

[Edited a bunch of times]

Okay.

Well, we can either use the scientific method to investigate observable (testable) reality, or we can speculate further than that. If we do the first, we create models that make predictions, and we test those predictions. We eventually improve the models until they are as close to reality as possible.

If we are speculating about qualities of reality we can't observe, or indeed outside of our own reality, we can't know what is possible and what is impossible. So your question was asking, I thought anyway, whether it's a logical possibility that something could be non contingent. The difference between a logical possibility and an actual possibility, I would assume, is that the former just has to be consistent, whereas the second needs to be demonstrable. If you mean something else by the phrase, then please let me know.

So we can speculate by making up details about the things we don't know, and as long as these details are internally consistent, and don't contradict how they would apply to our reality, then it's "logically possible". We can't rule it out, you could say. It's completely impossible to ever demonstrate which set of details is actually true or possible, because we can't observe or test the qualities/things they apply to.

So if you instead insist we restrict ourselves to observable reality, then you're insisting we already know everything there is to know. And clearly, we almost certainly don't. Again, there's know way to know that, even if we did know everything. We'd be saying observable reality is all of reality.

So what I'm saying, is you can't scientifically extend models or principles that work in observable reality to unobservable parts, because they simply may not work that way. How do they work? We have no idea, because we can't observe them. So "anything goes", as far as I can see, as something that is logically possible. It doesn't mean it's true, or actually possible, just theoretically logically possible if things were a certain way. How else do you propose we determine what is and isn't possible? We could further speculate about what are more likely possibilities, by examining the number of additional assumptions that need to be made as per Occams Razor.

[robvalue]

What is all this shit I'm talking? Someone must have put something in my breakfast. Sorry about that.

[Ignorant]

Well, we can either use the scientific method to investigate observable (testable) reality, or we can speculate further than that. If we do the first, we create models that make predictions, and we test those predictions. We eventually improve the models until they are as close to reality as possible.

I'll start here before addressing the rest.

The "speculations" which extend beyond scientific investigations must be guided either by logical deduction when forming certain conclusions, and logical induction when "creating models that make predictions". A lot of scientific research proceeds by way of inductive reasoning toward the forming and testing of predictive models. In both deductive and inductive investigation, when the logic is poorly applied, you are bound to get poor conclusions and poor models.

If we are speculating about qualities of reality we can't observe, or indeed outside of our own reality, we can't know what is possible and what is impossible...

That is true if the investigation is "speculating" by means of inductive prediction. This is NOT true is the "speculation" proceeds by means of deductive logic. Here is an example illustrating both:

INDUCTIVE (The Prediction of Neptune - [edit] forming a conditional conclusion):

The orbit of Uranus was scientifically observed to have an irregular orbit. Based upon the data of the observed orbit, Anders Johan Lexell suggested that, if another, currently non-observable planet existed, it would explain the irregular orbit of Uranus. Then, based on observed data, other men predicted the position, mass, and orbit of that hypothetical planet. Absent the observation of the planet itself, all of these "speculations" were logically guided, and awaited the validation by scientific observation. That scientific observation eventually happened, and Neptune was discovered (as predicted).

1) Uranus has an irregular orbit

What causes Uranus have an irregular orbit? We have no direct evidence yet.

I) IF another planet existed near Uranus, it would cause Uranus to have its irregular orbit.

1) is true. I) is logically "induced" using a conditional/hypothetical clause and the laws of physics. I) is a CONDITIONAL and logical conclusion from 1) and the laws of physics. Searching for the truth of that conditional led us to the discovery of Neptune. 

DEDUCTIVE ([edit] Non-conditional conclusions)

1) If another planet exists near Uranus, it would cause Uranus to have an irregular orbit.
2) Another planet exists near Uranus.
C) Therefore, Uranus has an irregular orbit.

If 1) and 2) are both true, then C) MUST be true. If 1) and 2) are both true, then it is impossible that C) is false. In other words, if 1) and 2) are both actually true, our observations of Uranus's orbit is irrelevant to the truth of the conclusion that it is irregular.

If C) is false, then it must mean that either 1) or 2) or both are also false or that C) does not logically follow from 1) and 2).

Now, regarding our own discussion, here are my two premises:
1) Some things exist on the condition that another thing also exists.
2) A synchronous and infinite regress of conditions for existence is not possible.

C) Some things exist without the condition that another thing also exists

We agree on 1). If you think 2) is false, the burden of proof seems to be on you to demonstrate its possibility/coherence whatever you want to call it. I'm open to it being false, but for the logical reasons I have provided already a few times in this thread, I can't conclude that it is possible. Can you provide an argument that leads to the deductive conclusion that a synchronous and infinite regress of conditions IS possible?

[edit] If 2) is IN FACT false, then we don't have enough information to conclude whether or not "ALL things exist on the condition that another thing exists", or rather "some things exist without the condition that another thing exists." leaving the argument unable to tell us anything we don't already know.

[robvalue]

You're still talking about observable reality, there. It may not be directly observable, such as things that were in the past or whatever, but it's things that could have been observed. You're talking about inductive reasoning regarding elements of a space/time reality we generally understand.

I'm talking about speculating further than that.

For example, say there an infinite number of other, self contained, realities. We are inside just one, and we can never get out of it. Neither can anything in any of the others.

We can't simply apply our rules of how the contents of our reality works to any other realities, nor can we apply them to how the realities themselves behave. We could assume that they do apply for the sake of speculation, but we can't possibly know if we are right or not.

Also, there may be more going on in our reality than we can ever observe. "Behind the scenes" processes or entities, behaving in bizarre ways. We can't just say there isn't, or that they must follow the rules of the things we can observe.

If you're going to exclude all these other unfalsifiable propositions, then you're reduced to scientific modelling only, and your claims will only be true within observable reality.

[Ignorant]

You're still talking about observable reality, there. It may not be directly observable, such as things that were in the past or whatever, but it's things that could have been observed. You're talking about inductive reasoning regarding elements of a space/time reality we generally understand.

I'm talking about speculating further than that.

For example, say there an infinite number of other, self contained, realities. We are inside just one, and we can never get out of it. Neither can anything in any of the others.

We can't simply apply our rules of how the contents of our reality works to any other realities, nor can we apply them to how the realities themselves behave. We could assume that they do apply for the sake of speculation, but we can't possibly know if we are right or not.

Also, there may be more going on in our reality than we can ever observe. "Behind the scenes" processes or entities, behaving in bizarre ways. We can't just say there isn't, or that they must follow the rules of the things we can observe.

If you're going to exclude all these other unfalsifiable propositions, then you're reduced to scientific modelling only, and your claims will only be true within observable reality.

Ok, how is it the case that, in this observable reality, any particular finite thing can exist on the condition that an infinity of finite conditions are satisfied? What makes this particular conclusion reasonable, coherent, logical, however you want to describe it?