guest_of_logic: Like Diebert, and even after I clarified it to him, you seem to be misunderstanding what I mean by (possible) "world": I mean not just planet Earth, but everything that comprises the Totality.
Diebert: Please try to imagine that I not only understood you perfectly clear but that you might be still misunderstanding what is meant by Totality, the whole inclusiveness of it. Just try to imagine a version of the Totality where you actually understood all different versions and possibilities are necessarily caused leading you to admit it's still the One Reality and all hypothetical versions would be nothing but variations on the same theme, still part of the same symphony.
Just to be clear, I didn't mean to imply that
you continued to misunderstand after I clarified it to you, but that David did.
I'm not sure I quite understand what you're saying, but here's an attempt at an interpretation: the Totality comprises (is that better than "contains", Cory?) all possibilities, such that over all time, every possibility, and every imaginable alternative, will occur (and indeed
has already occurred, infinite times [you didn't say this explicitly but it seems to be implied by what you did say]), and thus (I assume you to be implying) the problem of imaginable alternatives that do not actually exist is resolved: all imaginable alternatives exist at some points in time.
I see two problems with what you say, assuming that I've interpreted you correctly.
The first problem is that it doesn't address what I outlined in an earlier post (and which I quote to Dan below): the definitive properties of
the present moment, in which
only one alternative can exist.
The second problem is that this "whole inclusiveness" is nothing but an assumption, and one which can easily be demonstrated to be false. For example, one imaginable possibility is that in the Totality there is no, never was any, and never will be any, consciousness. Clearly this is not a possibility that the actual Totality admits of.
Dan Rowden wrote:Excuse me
Certainly not! Your position is inexcusable!
(I jest, I jest)
Dan Rowden wrote:but why do you imagine that any set of conditions could have been any other way? Because we can imagine it? Perhaps you ought - first - consider if this product of imagination is sensible.
The product of my imagination contains no logical inconsistencies - perhaps you ought to explain what then invalidates it as a legitimate possibility, in particular this description that I wrote to Diebert in a previous post, which as yet has not been responded to explicitly:
"Right now I am typing a post to you, but if, say, the thought had instead entered my mind to have a cup of tea, then right now I
might have been drinking a cup of tea instead of typing. For that thought to have entered my head, the antecedent causes would of course have to have been different. Let's grant then, that the antecedent causes
might have been different. Now, for those antecedent causes to have been different,
their antecedent causes would have to have been different. Let's grant then, that
those antecedent causes
might have been different. Continue ad infinitum (and into the future, not just the past), and we end up with an entirely new "possible world": a Totality that
might have been."
Dan Rowden wrote:The "house philosophy" explains why it isn't, perfectly. The simple, seemingly insurmountable truth is, you don't understand one iota of that philosophy.
You're never going to get tired of pulling the "you don't understand" card, are you? It must be lonesome to be so misunderstood... ;-)
The house philosophy doesn't explain why the entire web of causes of the Totality is such that right now I am typing rather than doing any number of other possible things, including not even existing at all. At most it says that that entire web of causes, being everything, cannot be caused itself. That doesn't explain why it has the specific nature (including the properties of each moment) that it has, though.
Dan Rowden wrote:In what way does causation not account for - and resolve - your imaginary dilemma?
See above. The web of causation can be encapsulated (abstractly), and being that there are no causes outside of it, there is no explanation for why that entire web of causation is as it is and not some other way (e.g. the way of the example I provided above to Diebert, of a Totality devoid of consciousness).
Dan Rowden wrote:Just so everyone knows, I have deactivated both Robert's and Nat's (Unidian) accounts. Their current behaviour and posting amounts to nothing less than trolling and I have no patience for it.
Trolling? I hardly think so. There was some humour at QRStian expense, but in general they were contributing constructively, offering their take on the Eastern philosophies so highly regarded here, and explaining, in some detail, why they disagreed with the take of the house philosophers on those Eastern philosophies. Deactivation seems very extreme, particularly without warning.