Necessary Thing

[Ignorant]

You're welcome

Earlier you were saying an infinite chain of contingency is impossible, something to that effect. I don't know how you could possibly know that.

Sounds like a ripe question for a new thread then doesn't it? I'll be trying to think of the best way to propose it as a question! Thanks!

Until then, suppose we could know that an infinite chain of contingency is impossible. Would you agree or disagree that such case would mean that:

"some things exist without the condition that other things synchronously exist"?

[robvalue]

I think that may be what is happening. You're thinking about breaking things down into component parts, looking for something that can no longer be broken down...

Am I right?

To the above, given the definition of contingency you are using, it would seem to be a reasonable conclusion, yes.

(PS I do have an objection actually but let's see if we're talking about the same thing first.)

[Ignorant]

I think that may be what is happening. You're thinking about breaking things down into component parts, looking for something that can no longer be broken down...

Am I right?

That is the closest you have come so far to expressing the idea, sure. However, it is a bit more than breaking it down into component parts because the way in which the component parts exist is also a condition to be "broken down".

[robvalue]

Sure, OK thanks. This explains a lot about why I couldn't understand earlier.

Well, I couldn't possibly say. As far as I know quarks are the smallest component, although I think it's the case that ultimately everything exists as a probability field, as per quantum mechanics. When you get down to the real small parts, things stop being so clear cut as just "stuff" and start becoming increasingly abstract and weird. I don't have a great grasp of QM but we have plenty of people here who do. There's also wave/particle duality and such.

Can you keep on going, indefinitely? Maybe you can. Maybe reality is like a fractal. Again, I don't think you can rule this out. You'd be assuming some sort of "end point", without ever being able to test that it really is an end point and not just the limitations of your technique.

My objection though is that you're ignoring the possibility that a potential "smallest thing" could still have some indirect dependency on something else. Let's say item A1 has a corresponding object A2 in a parallel reality or something; and if object A2 were to be destroyed, this would cause object A1 to also be destroyed. So even if it's not dependent on anything in the manner you describe, we can't rule out some sort of weird dependency like this.

We have no reason to necessarily rule it in, either. But if you're making general statements of fact, you need to be able to exclude all alternatives with certainty. Science doesn't ever deal with certainty, because it's not a useful concept. It deals with conclusions that appear to be true beyond reasonable doubt.

[downbeatplumb]

Sure, OK thanks. This explains a lot about why I couldn't understand earlier.

Well, I couldn't possibly say. As far as I know quarks are the smallest component, although I think it's the case that ultimately everything exists as a probability field, as per quantum mechanics. When you get down to the real small parts, things stop being so clear cut as just "stuff" and start becoming increasingly abstract and weird. I don't have a great grasp of QM but we have plenty of people here who do. There's also wave/particle duality and such.

Can you keep on going, indefinitely? Maybe you can. Maybe reality is like a fractal. Again, I don't think you can rule this out. You'd be assuming some sort of "end point", without ever being able to test that it really is an end point and not just the limitations of your technique.

My objection though is that you're ignoring the possibility that a potential "smallest thing" could still have some indirect dependency on something else. Let's say item A1 has a corresponding object A2 in a parallel reality or something; and if object A2 were to be destroyed, this would cause object A1 to also be destroyed. So even if it's not dependent on anything in the manner you describe, we can't rule out some sort of weird dependency like this.

We have no reason to necessarily rule it in, either. But if you're making general statements of fact, you need to be able to exclude all alternatives with certainty. Science doesn't ever deal with certainty, because it's not a useful concept. It deals with conclusions that appear to be true beyond reasonable doubt.

There is also evidence required to support any idea, saying that something is "needed" requires some sort of proof to justify it. I have said that time and space are needed, we know that both of these things exist. The problem starts when people try to infer something that has no supporting evidence is a thing and shoehorns that into a view of reality. I am thinking here of anything that calls on the supernatural, gods, ghosts, souls or any other such nonsense, none of which has any evidence backing them up.

[robvalue]

Indeed. The crucial part is that we model reality, we don't define reality.

I have no idea if this is headed in a supernatural direction or not. I had this completely backwards from the start, now I'm not sure where it's going! Maybe it's not going anywhere, but it's interesting anyway.

[Ignorant]

Can you keep on going, indefinitely? Maybe you can. Maybe reality is like a fractal. Again, I don't think you can rule this out.

Sure, if it is true that "some things exist on the condition that other things exist synchronously", then it is EITHER true that (1) ALL things exist on the condition that other things exist synchronously (e.g. like a fractal), <OR> that (2) SOME things exist without condition. Both cannot be true at the same time. <= Would you agree so far?

In order to know which of the 2 propositions is true, we need more information, some other true premise.

Let's say item A1 has a corresponding object A2 in a parallel reality or something; and if object A2 were to be destroyed, this would cause object A1 to also be destroyed. So even if it's not dependent on anything in the manner you describe, we can't rule out some sort of weird dependency like this.

Of course we can't rule out this sort of dependency (in fact, I don't see how/where I have), but then, A1 would still be dependent, whether or not our observations "validate" that conclusion or not. A1 would still fall in the subset of things which exist on the condition that other things exist synchronously (e.g. A2 in the parallel reality). Is that sort of conditional existence possible? Of course, but now we've just kicked the can into the parallel reality. Does A2 exist conditionally or not? Those sorts of possibilities are assumed within the concept of "condition" or "contingency".

We have no reason to necessarily rule it in, either. But if you're making general statements of fact, you need to be able to exclude all alternatives with certainty. Science doesn't ever deal with certainty, because it's not a useful concept. It deals with conclusions that appear to be true beyond reasonable doubt.

Sure, and I like that you said, "exclude", because that is exactly what I've done, at least I think so. I considered the possibility that ALL things exist conditionally. My consideration of the proposition is what you take issue with, which is why I intend to start a new thread at some point about just that topic.

But if that proposition is indeed false, then logic leaves no room for anything but the alternative being true => Some things exist without condition.

[Ignorant]

I have no idea if this is headed in a supernatural direction or not. I had this completely backwards from the start, now I'm not sure where it's going! Maybe it's not going anywhere, but it's interesting anyway.

Why does it have to be heading in a particular direction? Can't we just follow what we find true to where it leads? And no, it's not going in a "supernatural direction", if by that you mean I'm just biding my time before I pull the big divine "gotcha" card that doesn't actually exist. =)

[robvalue]

No, it's refreshing that there isn't one. You see, almost any conversation we ever have on here with a theist is a thinly veiled attempt to shoehorn their personal woo into some sort of believable context. And we can generally see it coming a mile off every time. So it's great that isn't the case here. Yup, it's really sad. But that's what they mostly do, day in day out.

I agree that either everything is dependent on something else for its existence, or some things are (assuming our observations are reliable).

I don't personally think it's possible to go any further, perhaps ever. Knowledge extends as far as we can examine and test.

I would recommend delving into some quantum mechanics. If you've never looked at it before, I can guarantee you'll be amazed. It's incredibly bizarre and counter-intuitive. You have to try and abandon all your normal preconceptions about how things work. I've picked up only a very basic understanding, my current mental faculties being hampered by CFS make it hard for me to learn it as I perhaps once could. We have some guys on here who know a whole lot about it as well, if you're interested.

[Ignorant]

...I don't personally think it's possible to go any further, perhaps ever. Knowledge extends as far as we can examine and test...

That is fine if you hold that position. But if the bold proposition is true, I don't understand how you could "know" it by examination and testing. It's an epistemological claim, not a scientific one. However, I've been wrong before...