Necessary Thing

[GrandizerII]

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?

Provide an example of a finite thing? Perhaps all things we see are an extension or part of infinite existence. One with infinity, god, universe, whatever you want to call it.

[Ignorant]

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.

To be honest, I don't see how this is relevant. An infinity of other realities may exist, or not, and my question still has meaning. I want to know if our experience of this reality can tell us whether or not some things exist without the condition that another thing exists. Can what we observe in this reality provide the information from which we can logically deduce such a thing's existence (independent of our ability to currently "observe" it directly)?

[Ignorant]

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?

Provide an example of a finite thing? Perhaps all things we see are an extension or part of infinite existence. One with infinity, god, universe, whatever you want to call it.

That would be an example of a finite thing. If it is a part of infinite existence, it can't be infinite existence itself, and is therefore finite. You are a finite thing.

[robvalue]

No, it can't. You seem to want to extrapolate the known into the unknown, and I don't know why.

The known may depend on the unknown, and we can't possibly know how.

[Ignorant]

No, it can't. You seem to want to extrapolate the known into the unknown, and I don't know why.

The known may depend on the unknown, and we can't possibly know how.

Do you [believe edit] think that it is possible for valid and sound syllogism to yield a false conclusion?

[Ignorant]

No, it can't. You seem to want to extrapolate the known into the unknown, and I don't know why.

The known may depend on the unknown, and we can't possibly know how.

1) All humans are mortal
2) All Greeks are human

If I know 1 and I know 2, then someone asks: "Are all Greeks mortal?" I do not need to observe the mortality of every Greek in order to respond with a known unconditional answer. 1 and 2 logically yield:

All Greeks are mortal.

[robvalue]

We seem to be talking entirely at cross purposes.

I'm saying we have an observable set of objects A. Let set B be the unobservable ones.

B might be empty, but we can't assume it is.

Objects in set A may be contingent on objects in group B.

If they are, we have no way to examine this relationship whatsoever. A case as simple as B containing two objects, both contingent on each other, and everything in set A being contingent on one of them, is enough to produce a result where nothing is non-contingent.

We can't simply say "so and so is impossible within group B because of a parallel with group A".

This is exactly why we have the scientific method in the first place, to make sure our models actually match reality. And it's why speculation such as this tells us nothing about reality.

http://youtu.be/inw1fNItjdU

[Ignorant]

We seem to be talking entirely at cross purposes.

I'm saying we have an observable set of objects A. Let set B be the unobservable ones.

B might be empty, but we can't assume it is.

Objects in set A may be contingent on objects in group B.

If they are, we have no way to examine this relationship whatsoever. A case as simple as B containing two objects, both contingent on each other, and everything in set A being contingent on one of them, is enough to produce a result where nothing is non-contingent.

We can't simply say "so and so is impossible within group B because of a parallel with group A".

Thanks for clarifying!

1) The example you provide is not an infinity of conditions. Rather it is a circular one composed of a finite set.
2) Mutual contingency is not actually contingency. 

Consider the hypothetical thing X which exists on the condition that Y exists, which is to say Y's existence is more fundamental than X => If X exists, it presupposes the existence of Y. If Y exists, it does not presuppose the existence of X, but merely provides the conditions necessary for X. X means Y also. Y means just Y (and any of its own conditions).

Now consider mutual dependence. X exists on the condition that Y exists. If X exists, it presupposes Y also. However, Y exists on the condition that X exists. In other words, if X exists, it presupposes Y AND X also! Because the conditions of the conditions belong to the conditions of the thing itself, mutual contingency is really just non-contingency. Y(X) <= X(Y) <= Y(X). Pretty sure that just means that X = Y.

[robvalue]

Coming back to logic, a valid logical argument will produce a result that is as true as its premises.

Writing accurate premises that apply to an unknown and unobservable set of objects, acting under unknown conditions, is impossible. (Or at least, it's impossible to know they are correct.)

This is why the reality check comes after making the premises, to see how good the premises were. This is science.

Extrapolating premises from the known to the unknown and just assuming it works the same, is speculation. Any conclusion is suspect.

[Ignorant]

This is exactly why we have the scientific method in the first place, to make sure our models actually match reality. And it's why speculation such as this tells us nothing about reality.

If we know that:

1) All humans are mortal, AND
2) All Greeks are humans

Do we need the scientific method to discover that:

C) All Greeks are mortal

??