Theism vs. Atheism debate

Even an "illusion" must have some "substance".  An "illusion" cannot be "nothing".

If you look at a cow then the cow is made of meat, but your perception of the cow is not made of meat. 

What physically exists is a pattern of neural activity that encodes {cow}, ie a neural pattern containing information such as 'big', 'brown', 'has four legs and two horns'.  Your brain has the as yet unexplained power (consciousness) that turns that information into 'awareness'.

So an illusion (or anything percept) is made of information.  So is information a substance? 

That I suggest that is not a matter of fact but of how one chooses to define 'substance'.  Information is not nothing but neither is it an ordinary, material 'substance' like meat.  As long as people agree whether the word substance includes information or not either convention can be adopted. 

In logic, a tautology (from the Greek word ταυτολογία) is a formula or assertion that is true in every possible interpretation. [LINK]

Yes, saying the same thing twice. If the two things you said were different, the assertion could be false. 

Whether that knowledge is absolute or not.

If knowledge requires absolute certainty, or knowledge must be "true," then I don't think anyone knows anything.

If knowledge is familiarity with something (I know a person), then yes, I say people have knowledge of whatever they perceive. Maybe this is my romance language roots, but some languages have two words for "to know," which is why the difference is salient to me. 

Do you know how many people are currently riding bicycles on the planet earth?  No you don't.  But you can still be pretty certain the number is more than zero.  Things exist outside of your perception.

Ok, I'll explain what I mean by perceive. One can perceive without conscious ability to interpret. For example, if someone sprays that god-awful axe spray in the locker room, a person can walk in, smell it, and not be able to say, if they have never smelled axe before, "I am smelling axe spray," but they still smell it, I think we can both agree. In the same way, there are ripple/butterfly effects from the number of people riding bicycles at the this exact second in the world that affect me. That change the force of gravity on my body, or wind currents and many, many other things, that affect me, which would be different if one less person were riding a bicycle. So I do perceive them riding their bicycles, even if I can't express the number based on that perception because I have never been taught to read those perceptions in that way (and the perceptions would be so tiny and complicated as to require enormous energy). My perception isn't limited per se, it seems to be my ability to interpret my perception which is. If this is unclear, lmk. It's where I think we disagree mostly. 

Tautology isn't evidence, it is saying something the same way twice.

Logical necessity is actually pretty strong evidence.

Tautology is purely definitional. A tautology only occurs when you have said the same thing in different words. If there were a way to interpret the assertion as false it is because the two things you said were different somehow. 

The wave function =/= "nothing".

Again, wave-function is an after-the-fact description, it does "exist" before we measure it, or rather, entangle our measurement device with the system. 

When the wave function is measured, it collapses.  For example, [LINK]

I meant "doesn't." Let me put what I meant a little more clearly: A wave function describes the probabilities of where something we call a particle could be. It doesn't exist because it is a description. It is not nothing, as you say, but it is not what lies behind our perception, it only exists because of us here to interpret it. 

2. Every possible interpretation of the statement is checked and all lead to true. 

The second is impossible to do obviously,

meaning the first is how we can show a tautology. Contradiction happens by saying, in essence, A=/=A. So you are, in essence, saying the same thing twice, or saying the relevant information twice.

What you're calling "perception", I would call "hypothetical subtle imperceptible influence".

When I say "perception" I should perhaps substitute "comprehensible, identifiable input in the form of sight, sound, taste, touch, and smell".

But it doesn't seem to be hypothetical. Our experience is an amalgam of all these subtle things.

What we comprehend as smell is the combination of many individual sensations of molecules hitting our smell receptors, same with sight, touch etc. But we identify a combination of those things with, say, a grapefruit. It is the combination of many sensations that we assign and call grapefruit. 

So, if someone smells a grapefruit, but doesn't realize they are smelling a grapefruit, do they perceive the grapefruit? And to be nitpicky, humans have other senses.

Whatever the "probability wave function" "is" before we "observe" "it" is the noumenon.

But you again assume something is there before you observe it. 

"Nothingness" cannot possibly "exist".  Therefore, "somethingness" must necessarily exist.

But you again assume something is there before you observe it.

nothing = non-occupied space

Perhaps a good definition of evidence is 'anything compatible with the hypothesis'?

There is direct evidence and indirect evidence.  When direct evidence is inaccessible, indirect evidence is often considered "sufficient".

Nothing can only be nowhere and can only have no size and no shape and exist for no time period.

I think the tautology discussion we are having is probably inconsequential to be honest. But when you say "there is no such thing as nothingness" I'm saying that can be reduced to: "Something that does not exist does not exist"To deny this would be to say, something that doesn't exist, does exist. Or A=\=A. Self contradiction. All tautologies, can be reduced, i believe, in this way. 

As for perception. I wonder what you mean by primary individual field of perception. Where do you draw the line there? And does someone with aphasia perceive even if they can't express it? 

And we are disagreeing on existence too I believe, because I still am not getting your logic on why noumenon necessarily exist. That seems absurd to me personally. I'd like to understand your full logic there. 

Why is nothingness logically impossible. Maybe thatt will clear it up.

And i think i disagree of I'm understanding you correctly, that there something outside the phenomenal. If something affects the phenomenal world or could potentially, it is a part of the phenomenal world in my view

Can you give examples of direct and indirect evidence?

Nothing can only be nowhere and can only have no size and no shape and exist for no time period.

Hm... in your opinion, does space exist? Does time?

However, while phenomena are defined specifically as "observable and knowable", noumenon by contrast is "not observable and unknown/unknowable" except in very broad, logically necessary terms.  The details of "what" noumenon "is" and or "how" it "works" are very likely unknowable.  Kant very specifically points out that we cannot infer any particular details of noumenon from phenomenon.

This is not my understanding of noumenon. And does an apple have a noumenon? Are there different noumenon for specific items? Or is noumenon the sum total of anything we cannot be sure of. If I cannot see color, I guess that would be part of my noumenon, but you can, so we have different noumenon? Again, I think we are disagreeing on a level more fundamental than what we are talking about here, so none of what you're saying makes sense. 

Space-Time exists and is rigorously defined Quanta.  We have uncontroversial tools which can measure it very precisely.

In physics, space-time isn't so much a "thing" as the distance between events to an observer, and is relative. And no one has been able to quantize spacetime and gravity yet rigorously and convincingly, if you were able to, that would be the theory of everything. 

This sounds a lot to me like Platonic forms.

And I don't think there is fundamentally an objective reality.

And the princess, with a fine-tuned enough measuring device, could discern from the top layer everything beneath, including the pea.

Like a hologram. Leonard Susskind has a very good talk on this. "The world as a hologram" i believe it's called.

But just because you can't identify your perception, doesn't mean you don't perceive it, in my opinion. I don't think you need to consciously identify to perceive.

But if all you are saying is that there seem to be things we can't articulate, sure, that seems reasonable.

If you are saying something necessarily exists outside of perception (perception being anything that influences your behavior), I can't agree.

Otherwise, that thing would be no different from God, in my humble opinion. 

I believe we agree on this.  Gravity and space-time are not "things", but they are phenomena, and they are measurable (quantifiable).

I think I would say instead are a way to conceptualize the results of a measurement. 

Platonic forms are also imperceptible, they are "posited."

I would say that your skin and eye damage is exactly your perception. I believe perception is an action, I don't posit consciousness being necessary for perception. 

Your great-great-great-great-grandmother's choice of dinner on her 22nd birthday influences you.  HOWever, you can not perceive it.

Your perception seems to require consciousness, I don't think it is required. As perception is an action in response to something. 

I'll give an example: How do we know dogs are colorblind while cats aren't? (If that's right). It is because a dog will react the same way to two different colors while a cat will react differently, you can take that "reaction" all the way down to the neurological level, but, essentially, perception is only an action in response to something.

And, I don't think there is a way to verify which actions in response to something are consciously thought about or not.

Unless that person is a solipsist, which I can't really falsify.

In essence, any action is a perception. When my body falls if I jump, that is perceiving gravity. If you restrict it to conscious identification, I find that arbitrary and strange.

Identification is really self communication anyhow, so perception is that which we can communicate to ourselves, which seems arbitrary.

Again, as always, I can clarify further. 

Otherwise, that thing would be no different from God, in my humble opinion. 

Do you have some prejudice against the gods?

Nope none at all, but usually, gods such as the hindu gods or buddhist ones or taoist ones or greek ones or sumerian ones or mayan ones etc. etc. etc. would be falsifiable. They usually say we inhabit the same realm or at least can. They might be immortal, but exist within time etc. And speaking english has some weird baggage. 

There are some "gods" that seem to be somewhat similar to the noumenon including Ein Sof, the primordial Greek Xaos, and the Tao.

Yeah, but when we say greek gods, we don't usually think first of Chaos. And taoism is complicated lol. I just meant that God with a capital G is just more accessible. Had to choose one, but I don't discriminate.

Anything that is scientifically measurable is phenomenal.

Sure, but we don't measure space, or time, they are (or spacetime if you prefer is) a way of splitting up events. We don't measure time, the measure of a clock is another clock. So time and space aren't phenomenon, but we conventionally create them to make talking about things easier. Lots of physical laws are time invariant. A positron = an electron travelling backwards in time for example. 

My understanding is that Platonic forms are hypothetically "perfect" versions of every-thing we perceive.

The noumenon is not "perfect" and it is also not a "version" of some-thing we perceive.

My understanding of Platonic forms is not that they are "perfect" but ideal in such a way that as soon as something is instantiated it isn't quite right. 

--------------------------------------------------

Ok, so I think I need to clarify perception or sensing. For my purposes the difference is unimportant. But this will be a doozy. I hope it helps you understand what I'm trying to get across. 

The classical five senses are arbitrary. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense

And splitting senses into distinct categories is impossible, and again, arbitrary. I also believe splitting an organism from its environment is also arbitrary, but for now let's say there is an organism. We are looking at it and we want to figure out what it can sense and what it can't.

Can it feel? We would touch it and see if it reacts. Can it smell roses? Put roses near it and see if it reacts. That reaction could be movement or making a noise or brain activity changes. Regardless, the way to ascertain as to whether it can sense is if we observe a change in the organism in response to certain stimuli.

Also, are you religious?

Would you call yourself atheist?

Nothing can only be nowhere and can only have no size and no shape and exist for no time period.

Being different as a result of some influence is not perception.

i don't see a way of differentiating them unless through consciousness. 

So if my ancestor did something slightly different, I as am would not exist.

This is an interesting, yet untestable hypothesis.

True, it is untestable, because it is counterfactual. But we can say that if the causes and conditions of my existence are different, I would potentially be different. 

The butterfly and the storm can be viewed as one "happening."

Clocks do not measure time, they measure events, like radioactive decay in most modern atomic clocks. There is no "time" to be measured. 

I'm not a big fan of monism at all. It is also arbitrary to say it's all the same thing, but it's a different way of looking at it. 

They don't, but what I did there was a metaphor in the hopes of showing that consciousness is not something that is necessary to explain the world.

Things do necessarily react when they detect stimuli.

I'm talking about the detectable, comprehensible, personal experience of human perception.

This is where we disagree, I am not sure (I don't rule it out) that there is such a thing as individual human subjective experience.

If there is a such a thing then yes, your definition might make sense for perception, but if that sphere of perception interacts with and is related to things outside itself, then I don't see a reason to believe comprehensible perception is at all important to anything if that comprehension is just all part of the mush. 

Make me one with everything, pal.  I get it.  Do you have a preferred term for "the detectable, comprehensible, personal experience of human perception"? 

Not saying you are necessarily one with everything, just that it is equally valid to say that and that you are separate. And I would call that "subjective experience" which I am not sure exists. 

Do you think it would be fair to say that noumenon is what's beyond human comprehension?

Do you mean beyond current human comprehension, or human comprehension in principle or both? And if it is beyond our comprehension, there is no reason to posit its existence. 

Nothing can only be nowhere and can only have no size and no shape and exist for no time period.

False.  A "nowhere" { metaphsyical-1 } answer from a somewhere human{ occupied space }. Inside and outside are places and are specific places of reference { relationship } ergo not your false claims of "nowhere".

But then, a theist will often think that means I think their god or no god.  

When you declare that "occupied space-time" is surrounded by "infinite" "unoccupied space-time" you have zero basis in either science or logic to make such a claim.

When you declare that "occupied space-time" is surrounded by "infinite" "unoccupied space-time" you have zero basis in either science or logic to make such a claim.

1} IFF we live in a finite, occupied space Universe, then the followin two conclusions can only relate to rational, logical common sense.

2} We have that finite space inside, and eternally existent, occupied space Universe

3} we have that non-occupied space outside of our finite, and eternally existent, occupied space Universe,

for completeness, they are examples of evidence for joy?

I think evidence has to be evidence for some definite propostion, but 'joy' is not a propostion!

So my own personal experience of joy is direct evidence of what, exactly?  And is it exactly the same thing that someone's smile is evidence for?

3R7.....You have presented no logical support for this claim (bald assertion).

3R7....You have not established that "finite space-time" is "inside" "any-thing"

AND you have not established it is "eternally existent".

You have absolutely no way of knowing any of this.

(IFF) there is "space-time" "outside" of our "finite occupied space-time" you have absolutely no way of knowing (IFF) it is "occupied" or not.