An Incoherent God?

Originally posted by whodey
I would challenge this assumption. Does one need to be able to define something in its entirety in order for it to be coherent?

Nobody said that it must be defined "in its entirety" but it is only coherent to talk about its existence if it has at least some definition and you can only coherently talk about the existence of the defined parts of the entity.

An interesting fact of quantum mechanics is that if you cannot know whether an object is in position A or position B then it actually exists in both position A and position B simultaneously. Or to put it another way if you cannot know if an object is Red or Green then it is simultaneously red and green. This fact is used in something called entanglement.

For more info see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_cat

Originally posted by twhitehead
And the most he can ever establish about its existence is within the definition of "something" as you have stated. He has provided a definition. He may even go as far as defining an "entity that results in a tapping sound" and say that that exists.

"An entity that results in a tapping sound" is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for the object that actually causes the tapping sound. If I encountered the object in a different context I would have no way of identifying it as the object in question. And that's my point -- he knows something is there without actually saying what it is in an objective sense.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
We're not talking about blind people identifying individual colours, but whether they can have some idea of the concept of 'colour' even if they can never directly experience it nor adequately define it.

My point is simple. Person A says, "There's something out there". Person B says, "You cannot coherently say there's something out there unless you can tell me exactly what it is". That's a fallacious objection.

No, we're talking about point three, which you objected to:

(3) An existing entity can only be identified by its dimensional boundaries (vis-à-vis other entities, or as a bounded figure vis-à-vis a dimensional ground).

Is colour an entity, "a thing that has a real existence, as opp. to a relation, function, etc."? It certainly can be identified--I guess wave-length = "dimensional boundaries" (bit loose, that).

So far your objection and your colour point are incongruous, maybe because you're talking around "identify"?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
No, we're talking about point three, which you objected to:

(3) An existing entity can only be identified by its dimensional boundaries (vis-à-vis other entities, or as a bounded figure vis-à-vis a dimensional ground).

Is colour an entity, "a thing that has a real existence, as opp. to a relation, function, etc."? It certainly can be identified- ...[text shortened]... n and your colour point are incongruous, maybe because you're talking around "identify"?

I was using blind man/colour as an analogy for beings bounded in space-time being able to posit extra-dimensional beings. Apologies for not making that clear.

The term 'identify' isn't clear here (and vistesd does use the term 'definable' later).

Originally posted by twhitehead
Nobody said that it must be defined "in its entirety" but it is only coherent to talk about its existence if it has at least some definition and you can only coherently talk about the existence of the defined parts of the entity.

A 'definition' is (by definition) about describing something in its "entirety" or at least providing a substantial enough description to identify it in most instances.

You don't need to know that simply to posit that something exists.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I was using blind man/colour as an analogy for beings bounded in space-time being able to posit extra-dimensional beings. Apologies for not making that clear.

The term 'identify' isn't clear here (and vistesd does use the term 'definable' later).

All right. Of course colour is not extra-dimensional so the analogy still doesn't work.

If "identify" doesn't equal "recognize", what else could it mean? From the available meanings of the word, what else could fit? Perhaps you simply mean that the wrong word has been used?

If you can't recognize something, you cannot define what it is--that's the logic here.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
A 'definition' is (by definition) about describing something in its "entirety"

Thats not true and you know it.

or at least providing a substantial enough description to identify it in most instances.
Exactly, or rather "a substantial enough description to identify at all". If that is not provided then how on earth are you going to even talk about it or its existence coherently?

You don't need to know that simply to posit that something exists.
Yes you do.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
All right. Of course colour is not extra-dimensional so the analogy still doesn't work.

If "identify" doesn't equal "recognize", what else could it mean? From the available meanings of the word, what else could fit? Perhaps you simply mean that the wrong word has been used?

If you can't recognize something, you cannot define what it is--that's the logic here.

Colour is (in a sense) "extra-dimensional" to a blind man wrt the parameters of his experience.

I don't know if the wrong word has been used -- which is why I asked vistesd to clarify.

If you can't recognize something, you cannot define what it is--that's the logic here.

Once again, a blind person could adequately define colours in terms of wavelengths without being able to recognise it without instrumentation of some kind. But that's a side-point.

The question here is not whether the person can 'recognise' something (in terms of telling it apart from other things) - but whether he can simply say "something's there".

Originally posted by twhitehead
Thats not true and you know it.

[b]or at least providing a substantial enough description to identify it in most instances.
Exactly, or rather "a substantial enough description to identify at all". If that is not provided then how on earth are you going to even talk about it or its existence coherently?

You don't need to know that simply to posit that something exists.
Yes you do.[/b]

No you don't. If I were causing the one causing the noise that the person in the box heard, he would simply not be able to identify me at all if we were to cross paths on the street.

EDIT: If this person were released later and had to give a description of what it was that was causing the noise to the police, he would simply be able to provide no meaningful description (or definition) at all. Doesn't mean he is unable to say that there was something causing the noise.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Colour is (in a sense) "extra-dimensional" to a blind man wrt the parameters of his experience.

I don't know if the wrong word has been used -- which is why I asked vistesd to clarify.

[b]If you can't recognize something, you cannot define what it is--that's the logic here.

Once again, a blind person could adequately define colours in ter ...[text shortened]... ling it apart from other things) - but whether he can simply say "something's there".[/b]

Since blind people have been known to identify colour (synaesthitically, eg by aural analogy) it is not.

You're evading the actual words used in that point, in which identification is the (cough) defining factor. Why not simply challenge the point on its own terms instead of saying its about something which it is not?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
No you don't. If I were causing the one causing the noise that the person in the box heard, he would simply not be able to identify me at all if we were to cross paths on the street.

And the person in the box would be unable to coherently discuss your existence.

EDIT: If this person were released later and had to give a description of what it was that was causing the noise to the police, he would simply be able to provide no meaningful description (or definition) at all. Doesn't mean he is unable to say that there was something causing the noise.
And you would fit the definition of something that causes noises. Whether he can identify you later is irrelevant. "something that causes noises" would be a meaningful description and would until further information is available be as far as he could go in coherently discussing your existence.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Since blind people have been known to identify colour (synaesthitically, eg by aural analogy) it is not.

You're evading the actual words used in that point, in which identification is the (cough) defining factor. Why not simply challenge the point on its own terms instead of saying its about something which it is not?

I doubt people who've been blind since birth can experience colours synaesthetically and, if they can, identify it with the "something other people can use to navigate but I can't" concept of colour they've formed for themselves. My point remains -- normal colour, as we experience and use it, is out of their bounds of knowledge.

You're evading the actual words used in that point, in which identification is the (cough) defining factor. Why not simply challenge the point on its own terms instead of saying its about something which it is not?

If a conclusion is built on false premises, trying to accept those premises and then challenge the conclusion is certainly not the most effective way of challenging it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And the person in the box would be unable to coherently discuss your existence.

Are you saying that it is incoherent for him to say, "There was something outside the box that was causing the noise"?

That's nonsense.

EDIT: And you would fit the definition of something that causes noises. Whether he can identify you later is irrelevant. "something that causes noises" would be a meaningful description and would until further information is available be as far as he could go in coherently discussing your existence.

That definition fits just about any medium-sized object or above. Hard to say it's "meaningful"; but still...

All you seem to be saying is that a person must be able to describe an object in some manner relating himself to know its existence. That I can readily conceed.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
My point remains -- normal colour, as we experience and use it, is out of their bounds of knowledge.

And therefore you could not have a coherent discussion about "normal color" with such a person

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Are you saying that it is incoherent for him to say, "There was something outside the box that was causing the noise"?
That's nonsense.

No, I am saying it is incoherent for him to say lucifershammer was outside the box without first at least defining something about lucifershammer.
If he says "There was something outside the box that was causing the noise" he can only coherently discus the possible existence of "something" which is defined. He cannot coherently talk about whether a "garble" was making the noise.