Necessary Thing

[robvalue]

OK, we're getting closer. What difference does it make whether there is an infinite number?

I just covered the next post with respect to logic.

You're suggesting that if the existence of A depends on the existence of B, it's "more fundamental". I don't see this as being meaningful. All that is happening is that if B no longer exists, for whatever reason, then A will no longer exist either. And the same the other way round. There doesn't have to be an ordering for this to be the case. As a visual example, imagine object A and object B are balanced on some scales. If either of them is removed, the other one "falls". Neither is more fundamental than the other. This is an analogy, not a literal representation. So the continued balance of A does depend on itself still being there, yes.

We could easily construct a circular dependency on a set of infinite objects, yes.

If you object to circular contingencies, then:

You could have an infinite set x1, x2, ... so that xN is contingent upon xN+1.

[Ignorant]

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.

I know. I've laid out my premises. So far you have merely disagreed with the premise about infinite conditionals, without demonstrating why it is not true.

Syllogisms "interpolate", i.e. deduce, unknown things from known things all of the time. That is actually where the scientific method derives its own premises.

[robvalue]

I don't know what premises you're proposing. Did I miss something? Or are you talking about one of these syllogisms?

How can you know whether they are correct, for both observable and unobservable things, once you lay out premises for contingency and existence?

[Ignorant]

...You're suggesting that if the existence of A depends on the existence of B, it's "more fundamental". I don't see this as being meaningful. All that is happening is that if B no longer exists, for whatever reason, then A will no longer exist either. And the same the other way round. There doesn't have to be an ordering for this to be the case...

Here we clearly misunderstand each other. If A depends on B, A's ability to exist comes from B's existence. If B no longer exists, A will no longer exist because B provided A's existence. That is exactly what contingent/conditional upon means. B's existence is the reason A can exist at all. IF two things have a synchronous, YET Conditionally DISCONNECTED existence, then they aren't mutually contingent. If they just "happen" to exist in parallel, then they aren't actually conditions of each other.

[robvalue]

I'm gonna take a break and give my brain a rest

I don't agree that the existence of one object depending on continued existence of the other means the second object is providing anything, except in a purely metaphorical or tautological way. We're not saying why the relationship is this way. It just is this way. You seem to be assigning it more meaning than is apparent. It's cause and effect.

[Ignorant]

I don't know what premises you're proposing. Did I miss something? Or are you talking about one of these syllogisms?

How can you know whether they are correct, for both observable and unobservable things, once you lay out premises for contingency and existence?

Premises:
1) Some things exist on the condition that another thing also exists synchronously
2) It is not possible to satisfy an infinity of synchronous conditions

[robvalue]

OK well...

The infinite chain covers that with each thing being contingent on the next. That invalidates premise 2.

[robvalue]

Visually, it's things stacked endlessly, starting with the top one and going down. There's always something under each one that could be pulled out to make it give way.

[robvalue]

If you're going to say there isn't allowed to be an infinite number of things, then there can't be an infinite contingency in the first place. But you can still have circular ones.

[Ignorant]

OK well...

The infinite chain covers that with each thing being contingent on the next. That invalidates premise 2.

Ya, that is what I've been asking you to show me, i.e. why 2 is not true. I clearly understand that you challenge 2, I don't yet understand why.

I don't agree that the existence of one object depending on continued existence of the other means the second object is providing anything, except in a purely metaphorical or tautological way.

Here's what I mean by way of example: An atom of helium depends on the continued existence of 2 protons. Each of those two protons is providing for the existence of the helium atom at every moment in which they continue to exist. How do I know that? If one of those proton's existence's suddenly stopped, that helium atom would no longer exist (agree?/disagree?). The continued existence of both protons provides for the continued existence of the helium atom. If it were possible for one of the protons to stop existing, and the helium atom to continue to exist, then the helium atom is not dependent on the existence of that proton in the way I mean dependent/conditional/contingent.

We're not saying why the relationship is this way. It just is this way. You seem to be assigning it more meaning than is apparent. It's cause and effect.

No, not more meaning, but a different meaning than what is usually assumed by people talking about these concepts. What things must be presently existing in the thing so that we could rightly say, "this thing is existing as helium"? NOT, What things must have happened so that we could rightly say, "this thing causes helium"?