Page 1 of 8

The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2019 12:48 pm
by -1-
In our perceived world the Universe is the greatest. By size and by complexity. Can you imagine the universe? No, you can't. It is there, we know it's a reality, but you can't possibly imagine the universe in all of its details.

Therefore the greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest.

Therefore the greatest imaginable is not bigger than some other, existing things.

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2019 1:11 pm
by Logik
-1- wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 12:48 pm
In our perceived world the Universe is the greatest. By size and by complexity. Can you imagine the universe? No, you can't. It is there, we know it's a reality, but you can't possibly imagine the universe in all of its details.

Therefore the greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest.

Therefore the greatest imaginable is not bigger than some other, existing things.
You don't even have to go at the scale of the universe to demonstrate our inability to deal with complexity.
We can't even imagine an atom in all of its quantum states.

The very notion of "imagination" is somewhat hazy. Would you say that the person who created this video could "imagine" the universe?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i93Z7zljQ7I

My sense of proportion/scale is strictly mathematical. To claim that it's empirical would be a big, fat lie.

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2019 1:29 pm
by surreptitious57
Everyone is naturally limited by their own imagination
However some have greater imaginations than others

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:02 pm
by -1-
Logik wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 1:11 pm

You don't even have to go at the scale of the universe to demonstrate our inability to deal with complexity.
We can't even imagine an atom in all of its quantum states.
True. Originally I wanted to compare an apple to an imaginary apple (which is way less complex than a real apple). Or take anything. But I wanted to stop the naysayers, so I came up with something really big and complex.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i93Z7zljQ7I

This is a magnificent description. I got scared shitless during some of the scenes.
Terry Pratchett said, "Religions are always created by people in deserts, because the sky is always clear at night, and they had to put something between themselves and infinity."

I am a city kid, always been, and sometimes I go out to the country. Once me and my gf then went out to the clearing at night in the country, put down a cover, lay down, to look at the starry sky, thinking how romantic it could be. You know, how the novelists of yesteryear attributed romantic power to the stars. I could only do it for ten seconds, then I got scared shitless.

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:04 pm
by -1-
surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 1:29 pm
Everyone is naturally limited by their own imagination
However some have greater imaginations than others
I hear you, surreptitious57. Maybe we should run a competition here, on this site, an informal competition, to see whose imagination is the greatest.

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2019 9:16 pm
by Reflex
-1- wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 12:48 pm
In our perceived world the Universe is the greatest. By size and by complexity. Can you imagine the universe? No, you can't. It is there, we know it's a reality, but you can't possibly imagine the universe in all of its details.

Therefore the greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest.

Therefore the greatest imaginable is not bigger than some other, existing things.
That was Anslem's point, not his failure.

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2019 9:40 pm
by -1-
Reflex wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 9:16 pm
-1- wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 12:48 pm
In our perceived world the Universe is the greatest. By size and by complexity. Can you imagine the universe? No, you can't. It is there, we know it's a reality, but you can't possibly imagine the universe in all of its details.

Therefore the greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest.

Therefore the greatest imaginable is not bigger than some other, existing things.
That was Anslem's point, not his failure.
Novel look at Anselm's argument. "I will now set out an argument to show how fallaciously I think." Yes, in this sense, it was his point. And he succeeded at getting it.

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2019 4:45 am
by Veritas Aequitas
-1- wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 12:48 pm
In our perceived world the Universe is the greatest. By size and by complexity. Can you imagine the universe? No, you can't. It is there, we know it's a reality, but you can't possibly imagine the universe in all of its details.

Therefore the greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest.

Therefore the greatest imaginable is not bigger than some other, existing things.
St. Anselm's argument has nothing to do with imagination.
Imagination deal with "images" in the mind which are restricted to observation and experience, thus limited to the empirical-rational. Imagination involves images in the mind and conception by reason.
As such one can imagine [with reason] the universe [empirical only] but not a Whole and Complete Universe [which is reason only].

St. Anselm's argument,
'God is an entity than which no greater can be thought of'
is not empirical-rational but solely based on pure reason.
Since it is via reason, St. Anselm argument is logical but I counter it is unsound.

That is because St. Anselm's argument is transcendental, purely based on reason
& thought only and not via an empirical-rational basis, thus it is impossible to be sound and real.
Without any empirical-rational ground, one can think of just about anything from the sensible to the nonsensical and illusory ideas like a perfect God.

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2019 10:20 am
by Logik
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Jan 16, 2019 4:45 am
As such one can imagine [with reason] the universe [empirical only] but not a Whole and Complete Universe [which is reason only].
[...]
Without any empirical-rational ground, one can think of just about anything from the sensible to the nonsensical and illusory ideas like a perfect God.
I am willing donate $100 to The Salvation Army (or any charity of your choosing) if you could provide ANY empirical grounding/evidence for The Universe's existence!

Put your money where your mouth is and offer to do the same if you fail to fulfil the challenge.

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 2:39 am
by Veritas Aequitas
Logik wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 10:20 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Jan 16, 2019 4:45 am
As such one can imagine [with reason] the universe [empirical only] but not a Whole and Complete Universe [which is reason only].
[...]
Without any empirical-rational ground, one can think of just about anything from the sensible to the nonsensical and illusory ideas like a perfect God.
I am willing donate $100 to The Salvation Army (or any charity of your choosing) if you could provide ANY empirical grounding/evidence for The Universe's existence!

Put your money where your mouth is and offer to do the same if you fail to fulfil the challenge.
Note as per Science and astronomy,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe

I stated;
"As such one can imagine [with reason] the universe [empirical only] but not a Whole and Complete Universe [which is reason only]."
If we cannot imaging a Whole and Complete Universe [which is reason only], how can we ever prove it exists.

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 5:28 am
by Logik
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 2:39 am
Note as per Science and astronomy,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe
Appeal to authority.

As per the same sources you have used: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 2:39 am
I stated;
"As such one can imagine [with reason] the universe [empirical only] but not a Whole and Complete Universe [which is reason only]."
Tell you what. I'll let you pick either "The Universe" or "the universe" (whichever one you think is easier).

Show me some empirical evidence. ANY empirical evidence for its existence.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 2:39 am
If we cannot imaging a Whole and Complete Universe [which is reason only], how can we ever prove it exists.
Then prove the one that you think is easier.

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 5:36 am
by surreptitious57

Science cannot prove anything because it is inductive and can only disprove by falsification or null hypothesis

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 5:53 am
by Age
Logik wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 10:20 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Jan 16, 2019 4:45 am
As such one can imagine [with reason] the universe [empirical only] but not a Whole and Complete Universe [which is reason only].
[...]
Without any empirical-rational ground, one can think of just about anything from the sensible to the nonsensical and illusory ideas like a perfect God.
I am willing donate $100 to The Salvation Army (or any charity of your choosing) if you could provide ANY empirical grounding/evidence for The Universe's existence!

Put your money where your mouth is and offer to do the same if you fail to fulfil the challenge.
Is there any thing that you are 100% certain about that you KNOW, for sure, exists?

If not, then so be it.
If you do, then would you say that exists within the Universe's existence?

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 5:59 am
by Logik
Age wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 5:53 am
Is there any thing that you are 100% certain about that you KNOW, for sure, exists?
I am a phenomenologist - I don't dabble into metaphysics.
I experience what I experience. To ask whether it's "real" or it "exists" - such questions do not concern me.
For I cannot tell the difference between "real" and an "elaborate deception".

The way I use the word "exists" is purely linguistic/logical and for the purposes of symbol manipulation.
If something "exists" then I can qualify/quantify it and put a symbol which represents it on a piece of paper.

I have one apple on my table and 3 apples in my fridge.

1 (apple exists) + 3 (apples exist) = 4.

If you say The Universe exists. Then I can put a symbol on paper that says. U (for universe).
OK.

And then?
Age wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 5:53 am
If you do, then would you say that exists within the Universe's existence?
Begging the question.

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 6:14 am
by Veritas Aequitas
surreptitious57 wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 5:36 am

Science cannot prove anything because it is inductive and can only disprove by falsification or null hypothesis
You are getting too pedantic with words.
There are many perspectives to the term 'prove'.
Note A rose by any other name, ...

Btw, those scientist who are doing real scientific experiments don't give a damn with the term 'induction' which is a philosophical term. What is of utmost concern is they comply with the requirement of the Scientific Framework, e.g. scientific method, peer reviews, etc.
Whatever term we assign for the conclusion of scientific theories or knowledge, the critical point is it must comply with requirement of the Scientific Methods.

In addition, it is not an oddity, the term "prove" in relation to scientific proofs is a common usage among many people.
What critical with the term 'prove' associated with Science is the context.

Note for example;
[Gold standards for scientific proof of efficacy and effectiveness as prerequisites for the dissemination of intervention programs in the field of early intervention. Randomized controlled trials].
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20936449
Note
Einstein's Proof of E=mc²
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hW7DW9NIO9M


This is a linguistic issue and there are no absolutes in linguistics.
Thus is it stupid for anyone to insist 'proof' MUST be related only to mathematics.