Options vs Choices.

[Quintessence]

Like Atlantis and the Fountain of Youth?
Empty names (proper names without a referent).

You are free to dig as many holes as you wish. I only want to understand what each hole is all about.

How can something be named without a referent? Aren't they referring to an idea or concept?

I'll dig as many holes as you believe I am digging. You get to decide what goes on in your own head like that, whether or not I'm actually digging one, two, three, or infinite holes. What am I supposed to be digging, anyway, in your imagination? Wanna make sure I'm getting my visualization right.

 

[Koldo]

How can something be named without a referent? Aren't they referring to an idea or concept?

A purported physical location only has a referent if this location exists as something more than imagination. An empty name can have meaning, and yet no referent.

I'll dig as many holes as you believe I am digging. You get to decide what goes on in your own head like that, whether or not I'm actually digging one, two, three, or infinite holes. What am I supposed to be digging, anyway, in your imagination? Wanna make sure I'm getting my visualization right.

The topics of the conversation.

 

[PureX]

It seems you are saying reality depends on what we think is true. I disagree with this.

Just becaus ewe cannot comprehend all of reality does not make any of reality untrue. This is where we are not going to agree.

But we already know that it does, as we discover our reality to be a false facsimile of what is, quite often.

I agree with this.

I think I agree with this. I just don't agree that reality is not true unless people think about it.

It's neither true nor false, it just is. Truth and untruth are cognitive phenomena that only happen in the human mind and only apply to our facsimile of reality.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

But we already know that it does, as we discover our reality to be a false facsimile of what is, quite often.

Again, I agree we cannot know reality with 100% certainty. But whatever is true about reality is true about reality whether we can know it or not.

It's neither true nor false, it just is. Truth and untruth are cognitive phenomena that only happen in the human mind and only apply to our facsimile of reality.

This has been a good discussion but we do not agree on this. The sun exists even if there were no people to observe it.

 

[PureX]

Again, I agree we cannot know reality with 100% certainty.

There is not "certainty" that is not 100%. It's what the term "certainty" means. To be less that 100% certain is to be uncertain.

But whatever is true about reality is true about reality whether we can know it or not.

You cannot possibly know that to be so. To ignore this would be unwise and somewhat dishonest.

This has been a good discussion but we do not agree on this. The sun exists even if there were no people to observe it.

Again, you cannot possibly know this to be so. The true nature of existence is a vast mystery to us. Both humility and reason dictate that we should respect this.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

There is not "certainty" that is not 100%. It's what the term "certainty" means. To be less that 100% certain is to be uncertain.

No, you can be 99% certain such as I am 99.9999% certain solipsism is false. Or 0.0001% certain that you have a $1000 bill in your pocket. It is just a way to say how confident we are in a belief. It is like 90% full water glass, according to you that cannot be. A water glass is either 100% full of water or not full. No other options. That is not true. We can be less than 100% certain of things.

You cannot possibly know that to be so. To ignore this would be unwise and somewhat dishonest.

I already said I am not 100% certain about anything. But I am 99.99% certain truth is not created when I believe something to be true. It is already true before I become convinced it is true.

Again, you cannot possibly know this to be so. The true nature of existence is a vast mystery to us. Both humility and reason dictate that we should respect this.

I already answered this many times. We are going to disagree. Are you ok with that disagreement?

 

[MikeF]

Do you see what I'm asking, here? What is this current popular obsession with an absolute inviolable "objective reality" that we have only limited and subjective access to, and that therefor remains forever beyond our comprehension? When the only reality that can possibly matter to us is the one that we have cobbled together for ourselves from limited experiences and our imagination, and the one that we are and will always be living in as a result?

The obsession, in my view, goes back to our earliest beginnings. The external world can be harsh and quite unforgiving. Extremes in temperature and weather, fluctuating food resources, illness and disease, and even minor injuries that could result in death, all these fueled a desire to gain understanding and some measure of control over these perennial assaults upon survival. Of course, progress was slow in this regard until we figured out we simply can't make stuff up about reality, we have to actually study it systematically and curb our tendencies towards making stuff up. We are now figuratively off to the races, with our understanding of reality seeming to grow exponentially. along with our control over those perennial assaults that plagued us.

As for our reality (or rather what we know of reality) being limited to what we cobble together for ourselves, nothing could be further from the truth. Once we developed language and then further, the advent of written language, experiences cobbled together by an individual could be communicated to other individuals and shared. With the written word, individuals could figuratively speak to generations well beyond their own finite existence. So we do not rely merely upon that which we coble together ourselves. We have access to the cumulative experience and knowledge of the countless that have come before us. It is this much more broad and rich tapestry of knowledge available to us today that provides a vantage point far superior to that of our ancient ancestor from which we continue to build and grow our understanding.

 

[PureX]

The obsession, in my view, goes back to our earliest beginnings. The external world can be harsh and quite unforgiving. Extremes in temperature and weather, fluctuating food resources, illness and disease, and even minor injuries that could result in death, all these fueled a desire to gain understanding and some measure of control over these perennial assaults upon survival. Of course, progress was slow in this regard until we figured out we simply can't make stuff up about reality, we have to actually study it systematically and curb our tendencies towards making stuff up. We are now figuratively off to the races, with our understanding of reality seeming to grow exponentially. along with our control over those perennial assaults that plagued us.

As for our reality (or rather what we know of reality) being limited to what we cobble together for ourselves, nothing could be further from the truth. Once we developed language and then further, the advent of written language, experiences cobbled together by an individual could be communicated to other individuals and shared. With the written word, individuals could figuratively speak to generations well beyond their own finite existence. So we do not rely merely upon that which we coble together ourselves. We have access to the cumulative experience and knowledge of the countless that have come before us. It is this much more broad and rich tapestry of knowledge available to us today that provides a vantage point far superior to that of our ancient ancestor from which we continue to build and grow our understanding.

There is no logical reason to presume that a collectively invented facsimile of reality is any more accurate in relation to whatever is than an individually invented one. Yet you persist in presenting this idea of a collectively invented facsimile of reality as some sort of justification for making that presumption. Why?

I understand our human desire to gain control over our circumstances by trying to understand them better. And I understand our fear in the face of our lack of understanding and therefor our lack of control. But all this pretense of understanding gets us is mostly some perverted delusion of control. As is being overwhelmingly evidenced by the fact that, as always, we humans stand on the edge of our own extinction, brought about mostly by our own hand. All of human history is steeped in suffering, death, and destruction in the name of our perpetual pursuit of ever greater control.

This pursuit of ever greater control is not working for us. The more we chase after it, the less in control we seem to become. And I don't see there being any solution to this dilemma until we stop pretending that it works. I really think it's time we stop trying to control the world around us and start trying to control ourselves. And that means stop trying to 'figure out' the world around us and start trying to figure out ourselves.

 

[MikeF]

There is no logical reason to presume that a collectively invented facsimile of reality is any more accurate in relation to whatever is than an individually invented one. Yet you persist in presenting this idea of a collectively invented facsimile of reality as some sort of justification for making that presumption. Why?

Of course there is a logical reason to have confidence that our understanding of reality continues to become more accurate. We have confidence because it works, it has predictive power, and it does gain us a measure of the control that we seek. The proof is in the pudding, as they say.

That we human beings have limitations and imperfections does not mean that we live and experience complete fantasy devoid of any tether to actual reality. By comparing millions upon millions of imperfect vignettes, we look at all the ways they are both similar and dissimilar, and ask ourselves why. Solving the why lets us begin to sort the wheat from the chaff, leaving us with the clearer picture of actual reality.

I understand our human desire to gain control over our circumstances by trying to understand them better. And I understand our fear in the face of our lack of understanding and therefor our lack of control. But all this pretense of understanding gets us is mostly some perverted delusion of control. As is being overwhelmingly evidenced by the fact that, as always, we humans stand on the edge of our own extinction, brought about mostly by our own hand. All of human history is steeped in suffering, death, and destruction in the name of our perpetual pursuit of ever greater control.

You are arguing my position here. You are acknowledging that we are gaining a better understanding of how the world works. However, what we do with that knowledge is a completely different matter. Having a better understanding of reality does not change the fact that at our core, we are still instinctual animals. Acknowledging *that* reality would go a long way to solving the behavioral problems you describe.

This pursuit of ever greater control is not working for us. The more we chase after it, the less in control we seem to become. And I don't see there being any solution to this dilemma until we stop pretending that it works. I really think it's time we stop trying to control the world around us and start trying to control ourselves. And that means stop trying to 'figure out' the world around us and start trying to figure out ourselves.

We can, and should, do both at the same time. We are of this reality. Understanding reality in general provides us with better leverage to understand ourselves. I would suggest that clinging to archaic artificial constructs of reality while denying our growing understanding of actual reality is detrimental to achieving the goal of figuring ourselves out. It only serves to stagnate us within a primitive mindset.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I would like to point out that we might have one number of viable options available to us, while having another number of actual choices available to us. And that the reason for the difference in the number options and the number of choices is recognition. An option that we do not recognize as an option may still be a viable option, but it's not a recognized choice. And is therefor not an actionable possibility.

The reason I mention this is because it is a good example of how "X" can be both true and not true at the same time, and even within the same context.

Bill wants to drive to Denver. There are three highway routes that Bill could take to get from his home to Denver, but Bill only knows of two of them. So although it is true that there are three course choices available to Bill, it is also true that there are only two course choices available to Bill. Because one pf them isn't.

I think it's important that we understand the reality of this kind of paradoxical truth when we're discussing and debating the theory of God.

I disagree with your assessment of "both true and not true". I don't see how this is related to the rest of your post.


I think your example of driving to Denver though, is a bad one. The amount of routes you can take is immensly bigger then just 2 or 3.
But I get the point. I'll change it to another example which I think is more fitting.

You are in a restaurant. The kitchen has chicken, beef and pork chops in the refrigirator and can prepare all 3.
The menu given to you however, only lists chicken and beef. You don't know about the pork chops and nobody tells you they have them.
So you have only 2 choice: chicken or beef.

I disagree that there are 3 options. You are given only 2 options. If it is not communicated to you that pork chops are also present, then it never was an option for you.

This doesn't make it "untrue" that the kitchen also has pork chops. You just don't know about it and weren't given the option to choose them.


EDIT: let's mix it up a bit more.
Take me restaurant example.
Let's add another thing to menu: lobster. Yet, there is no lobster in the kitchen.
So you are there, looking at the menu and the options given to you by the menu are chicken, beef and lobster.
Meanwhile, the kitchen has chicken, beef and pork chops.

See where I'm going here?

You now have a false option.
The true options still are beef, chicken and pork chops.
Regardless of your belief. Regardless of the options given to you. Regardless what you think you can choose.

Truth and beliefs are not the same thing.
You can look at the menu and consider it "evidence" the kitchen can make lobster. But it's wrong.

 

[PureX]

So, when is an option not an option?
When you don't know it's an option.
But it is still an option. Yes.
But it's not an option. No.
So, is it an option or isn't it?
Yes ... and no.

Now wait a minute! It's an option because it's a possible course of action that is available to me, but it's not an option because I don't know that it's a possible course of action that's available to me.
Correct.
So which is it?
It's both.
But it can't be both!
And yet it is.

 

[ratiocinator]

So, when is an option not an option?
When you don't know it's an option.
But it is still an option. Yes.
But it's not an option. No.
So, is it an option or isn't it?
Yes ... and no.

Now wait a minute! It's an option because it's a possible course of action that is available to me, but it's not an option because I don't know that it's a possible course of action that's available to me.
Correct.
So which is it?
It's both.
But it can't be both!
And yet it is.

You seem very confused about something that's very, very simple.

 

[PureX]

You seem very confused about something that's very, very simple.

I'm not confused at all. I don't need to believe that the truth isn't paradoxical.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The reality of God is an available possibility that is not available to those who are, for whatever reason, incognizant of it as such.

Of course, your analogy assumes an omniscient narrator who knows that the third route exists. To the people in the story, it's equally possible that there really are only two routes, and people besides Bill who try to follow a third route are mistaken and will ultimately fail.

What we would need, but don't have, is a way to tell which scenario is correct.

 

[PureX]

Of course, your analogy assumes an omniscient narrator who knows that the third route exists.

The scenario remains the same whether there is an over-view perspective or not. But it's interesting what you are saying, as it puts ourselves (the 'audience' so to speak) in the same predicament.

To the people in the story, it's equally possible that there really are only two routes, and people besides Bill who try to follow a third route are mistaken and will ultimately fail.

The third route either is or is not extant. In the example given, it is.

What we would need, but don't have, is a way to tell which scenario is correct.

We can tell this by the fact that the purpose of the scenario being given is to exemplify a paradox that can exist within truth.

 

[ratiocinator]

I'm not confused at all. I don't need to believe that the truth isn't paradoxical.

But nothing you've outlined is in the least bit paradoxical.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So, when is an option not an option?
When you don't know it's an option.
But it is still an option. Yes.
But it's not an option. No.
So, is it an option or isn't it?
Yes ... and no.

Now wait a minute! It's an option because it's a possible course of action that is available to me, but it's not an option because I don't know that it's a possible course of action that's available to me.
Correct.
So which is it?
It's both.
But it can't be both!
And yet it is.

You are playing with words and only seem to be confusing yourself.

 

[PureX]

But nothing you've outlined is in the least bit paradoxical.

So which is it? Is it an option or not?

 

[PureX]

You are playing with words and only seem to be confusing yourself.

Eyes clamped shut ...

 

[ratiocinator]

So which is it? Is it an option or not?

Depends how you exactly define 'option'. There is nothing paradoxical about the situation, you are just playing with words and their ambiguity.