Anselm argument and problem within

[Philosopher19]

Regarding the new ontological argument I posted. Here is a link to the full work if anyone is interested.

http://godisallthatmatters.com/2021/05/ ... ue-cogito/

Isn't it somewhat self-defeating that the "perfect" triangle you define as something that cannot be doubted is actually something that cannot exist?

That it can't exist in our universe does not mean that it can't exist at all. The universe is not all there is to Existence. Or has someone verified that the universe is all there is to Existence? Because to my knowledge, such a thing cannot be empirically observed. And to my knowledge, the observations made imply that the universe is finite. But pure reason dictates something cannot come from nothing in the same way that it dictates that Existence is Infinite (and if you see the ontological argument I provided, it dictates that Existence is Perfect).

[Philosopher19]

Now, if you and another cannot agree upon and accept a definition for the word 'semantics', for example, then how could 'semantics', itself, be so-called 'necessarily objective'?

Try and answer this, and see if while doing so helps you better understand what I was and am still actually 'meaning' here.

The label/word you use to refer to the semantic is subjective. This is why we have different languages. But the semantic that exists is not subjective. It is objective. This is why we can meaningfully translate languages.

Also, when one believes things like, for example, 'semantics are necessarily objective', then a really Truly meaningful discussion cannot ensue, neither.

I completely disagree. Conversations are meaningful precisely because semantics are objective. If two different subjects/people have focused on relevant enough semantics in relation to each other (so for example, they speak the same language and can get each other to focus on the semantic they want to get each other to focus on through speaking) they can understand each other. If everyone just created their own semantics, what would allow for them to communicate that semantic to the other? Again, the label/word you use to refer to the semantic is subjective. This is why we have different languages. But the semantic that exists is not subjective. It is objective. This is why we can meaningfully translate languages.

I will try again, but I am not sure how you could have missed it the first time. I, obviously, talked about agreement and acceptance of 'definitions' of 'words' and not about things like football teams and which one is better than another. Do these people here, in these days when this is being written, purposely miss what I wrote or are they just so blinded by their own beliefs that they cannot see the actual words, which I put in front of them here on a screen clearly printed for them?

You said, and I quote "'Semantics', themselves, are not necessarily objective at all." So I believe I paid enough attention to what you wrote.
In this post, I hope I have shown that semantics are objective and that languages are subjective.

[Philosopher19]

OK. And? For the sake of argument lets suppose that it's irrational; or contradictory. Does that imply it's meaningless?

Infinity is meaningful. Counting is meaningful. Counting to 10 is meaningful. Counting to infinity is contradictory/meaningless in the same way that a triangular square is contradictory/meaningless. Just because meaningful words are used, doesn't mean the overall thing is meaningful. But for the same of argument, if you wanna just call it contradictory and not call it meaningless because you see meaningful words used in there, then that's your choice. But to me, something like a 10th sense is meaningless despite 10th and sense being meaningful words (although a 10th sense is an unknown where as counting to infinity or a round square is a known contradiction)

Precisely what infinite means.

I have no idea what you mean by "reach infinity" it's not a destination/location

When I say "even if you count forever, you will never reach infinity" I mean the cardinal infinity. If you don't reach the cardinal infinity, how have you got an infinite number of natural numbers? If {1,2,3,4,...} does not reach the cardinal infinity, how is there an infinite number of natural numbers in it?

[Philosopher19]

I'm well aware of non-euclidian geometry.

Awareness and understanding are very different things. You seem to believe that non-Euclidean geometries are less perfect than Euclidean geometry.

What you may call a non-euclidian triangle, I call an imperfect triangle. A perfect triangle has perfectly straight lines and its angles add up to 180 degrees. Another shape may resemble this without actually perfectly being this (like an imperfect triangle whose angles don't add up to 180 degrees but is near).

[Skepdick]

When I say "even if you count forever, you will never reach infinity" I mean the cardinal infinity.

That's because infinity is not a number/destination. I'm sure I said that?

If you don't reach the cardinal infinity

I suppose I could repeat myself an infinite number of times and you won't grasp that infinity is not a number/destination.

how have you got an infinite number of natural numbers? If {1,2,3,4,...} does not reach the cardinal infinity, how is there an infinite number of natural numbers in it?

Your questions are incoherent. The "..." represents infinite induction. It is a finite representation of an infinite structure. That answers your "how" question.

How many numbers are there in {1,2,3,4,...} ? Infinitely many, of course - the stream of numbers never ends.

[FlashDangerpants]

Regarding the new ontological argument I posted. Here is a link to the full work if anyone is interested.

http://godisallthatmatters.com/2021/05/ ... ue-cogito/

Isn't it somewhat self-defeating that the "perfect" triangle you define as something that cannot be doubted is actually something that cannot exist?

That it can't exist in our universe does not mean that it can't exist at all. The universe is not all there is to Existence. Or has someone verified that the universe is all there is to Existence? Because to my knowledge, such a thing cannot be empirically observed. And to my knowledge, the observations made imply that the universe is finite. But pure reason dictates something cannot come from nothing in the same way that it dictates that Existence is Infinite (and if you see the ontological argument I provided, it dictates that Existence is Perfect).

It seems you are attempting to draw the perfect circle. Now the same argument that is supposedly justified by reference to the imaginary 'perfect' triangle is also used to summon that object into existence.

[Skepdick]

It seems you are attempting to draw the perfect circle.

Could you explain what function the adjective "perfect" serves in your sentence? A circle is a circle is a circle.

Is the circle described by the algebraic structure x*x + y*y = 1 perfect or non-perfect?

Context: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=x*x+%2B+y*y+%3D+1

[Age]

Now, if you and another cannot agree upon and accept a definition for the word 'semantics', for example, then how could 'semantics', itself, be so-called 'necessarily objective'?

Try and answer this, and see if while doing so helps you better understand what I was and am still actually 'meaning' here.

The label/word you use to refer to the semantic is subjective. This is why we have different languages. But the semantic that exists is not subjective. It is objective. This is why we can meaningfully translate languages.

Also, when one believes things like, for example, 'semantics are necessarily objective', then a really Truly meaningful discussion cannot ensue, neither.

I completely disagree. Conversations are meaningful precisely because semantics are objective. If two different subjects/people have focused on relevant enough semantics in relation to each other (so for example, they speak the same language and can get each other to focus on the semantic they want to get each other to focus on through speaking) they can understand each other. If everyone just created their own semantics, what would allow for them to communicate that semantic to the other? Again, the label/word you use to refer to the semantic is subjective. This is why we have different languages. But the semantic that exists is not subjective. It is objective. This is why we can meaningfully translate languages.

I will try again, but I am not sure how you could have missed it the first time. I, obviously, talked about agreement and acceptance of 'definitions' of 'words' and not about things like football teams and which one is better than another. Do these people here, in these days when this is being written, purposely miss what I wrote or are they just so blinded by their own beliefs that they cannot see the actual words, which I put in front of them here on a screen clearly printed for them?

You said, and I quote "'Semantics', themselves, are not necessarily objective at all." So I believe I paid enough attention to what you wrote.
In this post, I hope I have shown that semantics are objective and that languages are subjective.

you missed or misunderstood the very first sentence in your quote of mine in this post of yours. Therefore, everything I said after that you have misunderstood as well.

Here now I will just suggest you read that first sentence at least one more time, and then see if doing so changes anything here for you.

[Philosopher19]

That's because infinity is not a number/destination. I'm sure I said that?

So I'm guessing for you, if something goes on forever, you label/call it "infinite"?
If that is the case, you need to account for the following:

The only reason something can go on forever, is because of Infinity. If there was no Infinity, nothing (such as a number sequence) would be able to go on forever.

Of course, whilst the number sequence that goes on forever, does in fact go on forever, I would label this as "goes on forever" as opposed to Infinite so as to avoid confusion between "that which goes on forever" and "that which is actually Infinite". The latter allows for things to go on forever, the former goes on forever (it is not the thing that allows for things to go on forever). A clear distinction has been highlighted.

I suppose I could repeat myself an infinite number of times and you won't grasp that infinity is not a number/destination.

If you don't get what I'm saying to you in this post, I suppose I should stop trying to convey to you what I'm trying to convey.

How many numbers are there in {1,2,3,4,...} ? Infinitely many, of course - the stream of numbers never ends.

But you said

infinity is not a number/destination

So when you asked how many numbers, surely the answer implies a quantity of numbers (to which you said infinitely many. Is infinitely many a quantity? Doesn't infinitely many mean an infinite quantity? If it does not, what is the difference between infinitely many and an infinite quantity?)

[Philosopher19]

Isn't it somewhat self-defeating that the "perfect" triangle you define as something that cannot be doubted is actually something that cannot exist?

That it can't exist in our universe does not mean that it can't exist at all. The universe is not all there is to Existence. Or has someone verified that the universe is all there is to Existence? Because to my knowledge, such a thing cannot be empirically observed. And to my knowledge, the observations made imply that the universe is finite. But pure reason dictates something cannot come from nothing in the same way that it dictates that Existence is Infinite (and if you see the ontological argument I provided, it dictates that Existence is Perfect).

It seems you are attempting to draw the perfect circle. Now the same argument that is supposedly justified by reference to the imaginary 'perfect' triangle is also used to summon that object into existence.

You have not said anything about the ontological argument I posted for me to meaningfully reply to you. I don't summon things into existence. I highlight truths about the nature of Existence.

Again, the argument is numbered 1 to 4. If you really want a discussion on the argument, tell me which number(s) you see as not being necessarily true so that I can then try and show you why they are necessarily true, or (in the event that you turn out to be actually right and point out how one of them is not necessarily true) potentially side with you.

[Philosopher19]

you missed or misunderstood the very first sentence in your quote of mine in this post of yours.

Here now I will just suggest you read that first sentence at least one more time, and then see if doing so changes anything here for you.

I read what you said again. And I looked at my reply to you. Best I can do is to try and bring more clarity to the matter.

Whilst I agree that two people can agree on what to label a semantic (thereby forming their own subjective language), I believe that semantics are objective. And whilst I agree that what semantic one is focused on is subjective, no subject can mistake one semantic for another (as in no one can mistake the semantic of triangle for the semantic of square. They may mistake which semantic the label "square" is referring to between the semantic of 'triangle' and the semantic of 'square' because they are a new language learner, but one cannot mistake one semantic for another when one is fully aware of or focused on the semantics involved)

[Age]

you missed or misunderstood the very first sentence in your quote of mine in this post of yours.

Here now I will just suggest you read that first sentence at least one more time, and then see if doing so changes anything here for you.

I read what you said again. And I looked at my reply to you. Best I can do is to try and bring more clarity to the matter.

The actual better thing you could have done was to seek out and gain and obtain more clarity. But, if you think or believe that the best that you can do here is 'to try and bring more clarity to the matter', as in try to get me to better understand you, then so be it and go ahead.

Whilst I agree that two people can agree on what to label a semantic (thereby forming their own subjective language), I believe that semantics are objective.

you are still completely missing and understanding my first sentence there. Which was and still is:

If you and another cannot agree upon and accept a definition for the word 'semantics', for example, then how could 'semantics', itself, be so-called 'necessarily objective'?

Until you obtain and gain 'clarity' of this first, anything you say and write in reply is really just moot.

Now, if you want to respond to what I said and wrote there, then okay. But it will help you in replying Correct if you understand it, first.

Also, that you believe that 'semantics' are objective, has absolutely no bearing at all on what I actually said and meant, and you saying that you believe 'semantics' are objective is just completely proving the very point that I was stating there.

And whilst I agree that what semantic one is focused on is subjective, no subject can mistake one semantic for another (as in no one can mistake the semantic of triangle for the semantic of square. They may mistake which semantic the label "square" is referring to between the semantic of 'triangle' and the semantic of 'square' because they are a new language learner, but one cannot mistake one semantic for another when one is fully aware of or focused on the semantics involved)

Have you informed 'us' of how you, personally, define the 'semantic' word, yet?

[FlashDangerpants]

Here's a new ontological argument for all who are interested.

1)
Whatever's perfectly x is indubitably x (for example, a perfect triangle is indubitably triangular. An imperfect triangle's triangularity can be faulted/doubted/rejected)
Whatever's perfectly existing is indubitably existing.

The biggest problem with your first premise is that it changes the definition of perfection away from whatever might have applied to that particular object into a generalised property of inudibitability. That would work if you could fully reduce perfection to indubitability, such that what it really really means to say of a triangle that was perfect is actually the same as saying that it cannot be doubted, but that would be stupid, so presumably you won't attempt it. Then you could make use of all your pretentious waffle about semantics. As of now, you have no chance with that line of rubbish.

Remove the sharp edges from your meaningless premise to allow it to make any sense at all, and you have nothing left. Just some guy on the internet saying that perfection cannot be doubted, which makes no sense, and is highly dubious.

Your attempt to justify it with talk of triangles is a failure because it requires your own ontological argument to assert that the perfect triangle must exist. Ergo, premise 1 ... no bueno.

2)
Semantically/objectively we know what's perfectly triangular (a perfect triangle)
Semantically/objectively do we know what's perfectly existing?

That's an aesthetic value judgement, not objective at all. I already gave the details of Hume on that matter. Premise 2 is rejected.

3)
There is nothing better than a perfect existence or a perfect being. If x is a perfect existence/being, then x exists perfectly. This is semantically/objectively contradictory to deny (just as it is semantically/objectively contradictory to deny that triangles are triangular).

In your triangle example you were judging precision of lines and angles as the benchmark for perfection and indubitability. Now you have crossed the is/ought gap to assert the desirablity of perfection without any supporting argument. You've made another aesthetic value judgement, not objective at all. You really ought to read that Hume thing and maybe watch the video too.

4)
Do we know what a perfect existence/being is?
God (or the perfectly omnipresent. Existence is Omnipresent. God and Existence denote the same. A truly perfect being and a truly perfect existence denote the same)

Given 1-4, God indubitably exists.

Here's the full work:
http://godisallthatmatters.com/2021/05/ ... ue-cogito/

And here you randomly announce your favourite thing to be perfect. Or you take it as a definition of what God is. But perfection is, in case you missed it, not a factual thing it is an aesthetic judgement that you just happen to be making and are unwilling to reconsider (which is as close to indubitability as you will ever get with this dogshit.)



Done.

[Skepdick]

The only reason something can go on forever, is because of Infinity.

Infinity is not the reason - it doesn't tell us WHY things go on forever.
Infinite is what we call things THAT go on forever.

If there was no Infinity, nothing (such as a number sequence) would be able to go on forever.

OK, if there was no infinity where would the number sequence {1,2,3,...} end ?

so as to avoid confusion between "that which goes on forever" and "that which is actually Infinite".

Why are you confused by two different descriptions of the exact same phenomenon? Forever is just infinite time.

The latter allows for things to go on forever, the former goes on forever (it is not the thing that allows for things to go on forever). A clear distinction has been highlighted.

Surely I don't have to explain this again? You are attempting to draw a distinction without a difference.

If you don't get what I'm saying to you in this post, I suppose I should stop trying to convey to you what I'm trying to convey.

I get what you are trying to convey. It's confused-speak.

But you said

infinity is not a number/destination

That's correct. There are infinitely many numbers.

infinite
/ˈɪnfɪnət/
adjective
1.
limitless or endless in space, extent, or size; impossible to measure or calculate.

So when you asked how many numbers, surely the answer implies a quantity of numbers (to which you said infinitely many. Is infinitely many a quantity? Doesn't infinitely many mean an infinite quantity? If it does not, what is the difference between infinitely many and an infinite quantity?)

There needs not be a difference. Infinity is a semantic property of objects.

[Philosopher19]

To Age, Skepdick, and Flashdangerpants

It seems to me that Skepdick and I will not agree on the semantic of infinity.
It seems to me that I don't really have anything else to say to Age.
It seems to me that what I believe to be objective, Flashdangerpants believes to be not objective.

It seems to me that there is no benefit to be had in any further discussion.

Peace