It's all a mystery really.....

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]Isn't any "brute fact" a self existent entity or phenomenon?

For the last time, no. We've had this discussion before and I still do not understand why you cannot grasp the conceptual distinction between the two. A brute entity simply has no explanation. In contrast, a self-existent entity putatively has explanation unto itself -- the point of ...[text shortened]... ystic just because I think it is likely that at least one brute fact exists.[/b]

The fact that it has no explanation is what makes it mysterious. Maybe inpenetrable or inexplicable are words you prefer.

The point is that whether we talk about brute facts or self existent entities the principle is the same - rational explanation has broken down. Rationality has reached it limits . All we can do is stop investigating and start just appreciating and experiencing the mystery of it.

You have to get your feelings involved in this to appreciate it. It's no good trying to define it using your rationality. You cannot explain it. Mysticism or contemplation (if that other word makes you uncomfortable) turns out to be the only choice.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]Isn't any "brute fact" a self existent entity or phenomenon?

For the last time, no. We've had this discussion before and I still do not understand why you cannot grasp the conceptual distinction between the two. A brute entity simply has no explanation. In contrast, a self-existent entity putatively has explanation unto itself -- the point of ...[text shortened]... ystic just because I think it is likely that at least one brute fact exists.[/b]

A brute entity simply has no explanation. In contrast, a self-existent entity putatively has explanation unto itself -- the point of 'self-existence' is that the entity putatively explains itself (for instance, its existence is putatively explained by its nature). The two are obviously not the same.--------------------------------------------------------------------------lemon-------------------------------------------------------------

I think your distinction is just wordplay. A self existent entity still does not have any explanation. One cannot say that self existent entity E brought itself into existence. E just is. Can E be said to have created itself?

One could say that God by his very nature is his own explanation - but that doesn't take away any mystery - it just deepens it. Similarly a brute fact just is a brute fact. That's all there is to it.

I don't doubt that there is some highly complicated intellectual and philosophical distinction between these two terms but I'm not really that interested. Both entities have no ultimate explanation and cannot be fathomed. We can still ask of both "why are they there? " - the answer is they just ARE.

To understand this you need to get your head out of the books you have been reading put some incense on and look out your window on a starry night. Existence just IS. It cannot be explained or fathomed.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]Isn't any "brute fact" a self existent entity or phenomenon?

For the last time, no. We've had this discussion before and I still do not understand why you cannot grasp the conceptual distinction between the two. A brute entity simply has no explanation. In contrast, a self-existent entity putatively has explanation unto itself -- the point of ...[text shortened]... ystic just because I think it is likely that at least one brute fact exists.[/b]

…That's the mystery - we can never ever find an explanation.

Supposing that there is no explanation to find, how is it then mysterious that we cannot find an explanation?
...…

Which is exactly the point 🙂 -thus there would be no “mystery”.

Originally posted by knightmeister
The fact that it has no explanation is what makes it mysterious. Maybe inpenetrable or inexplicable are words you prefer.

The point is that whether we talk about brute facts or self existent entities the principle is the same - rational explanation has broken down. Rationality has reached it limits . All we can do is stop investigating and start j or contemplation (if that other word makes you uncomfortable) turns out to be the only choice.

…The fact that it has NO EXPLANATION is what makes it mysterious.
...… (my emphasis)

When you say “NO EXPLANATION”, are you referring to “no POSSIBLE unknown explanation IN REALITY” or are you referring to “no CURRENTLY KNOWN explanation” ?
Lets not confuse the two here because one is merely a subset of the other:

If what you are referring to is “no CURRENTLY KNOWN explanation” then that begs the obvious question “how do you know that the reason why there is no current explanation is because there is no POSSIBLE explanation IN REALITY and thus there is no “mystery” in reality because there is no unknown explanation to know!

But if what you are referring to is “no POSSIBLE unknown explanation IN REALITY” then there is no “mystery” in reality because there doesn’t exist any unknown explanation in reality that “explains” it.
-And you cannot get round this just by saying it is a “mystery” that there is no explanation of the ABSENCE of an unknown explanation! -because that would beg the obvious question of what is the PREMISE for the belief that, in EVERY context WITHOUT exception, the ABSENCE of an unknown explanation MUST have an explanation!!!? -the answer, of course, there is no such premise.

A mystery is when there is an unknown explanation that has yet to be known but an absence of an unknown explanation in reality is no mystery for there is no unknown explanation to be known if there is no such unknown explanation in reality.

The rest of your post is flawed because it doesn’t get this point.

Originally posted by knightmeister
The fact that it has no explanation is what makes it mysterious. Maybe inpenetrable or inexplicable are words you prefer.

The point is that whether we talk about brute facts or self existent entities the principle is the same - rational explanation has broken down. Rationality has reached it limits . All we can do is stop investigating and start j or contemplation (if that other word makes you uncomfortable) turns out to be the only choice.

The fact that it has no explanation is what makes it mysterious. Maybe inpenetrable or inexplicable are words you prefer.

Gee, I thought that is what makes it brute. I don't prefer any of your labels for it. I would prefer to leave 'mysterious' for cases in which we are supposing that there is explanation but the explanation is elusive (or something like that). But this wordsmithing really isn't all that important, anyhow.

Beyond that, I don't need you to tell me when or how to get my feelings and appreciations in the right place. Just because I choose not to feed all your stray terminology doesn't mean there is something misplaced about my appreciations. I would rather you try to submit arguments that have well-defined conclusions rather than some vague drivel of a conclusion like "existence is a mystery". But you seem intent on the latter, so I gotta work with what I got. If I can convince myself that I understand what you really mean sans the unnecessary terminological baggage, then I am satisfied.

Originally posted by knightmeister
A brute entity simply has no explanation. In contrast, a self-existent entity putatively has explanation unto itself -- the point of 'self-existence' is that the entity putatively explains itself (for instance, its existence is putatively explained by its nature). The two are obviously not the same.------------------------------------------------------ ut your window on a starry night. Existence just IS. It cannot be explained or fathomed.

I think your distinction is just wordplay.

Well, it's not. I'm not sure how else to explain this to you. In the cosmological argument, some like to break it down into 3 options -- very, very roughly, something like: explained by another; explained by itself; explained by nothing. Now, if you cannot understand that these people intend to convey two different things with the second and third options, then I cannot help you here.

Originally posted by knightmeister
A brute entity simply has no explanation. In contrast, a self-existent entity putatively has explanation unto itself -- the point of 'self-existence' is that the entity putatively explains itself (for instance, its existence is putatively explained by its nature). The two are obviously not the same.------------------------------------------------------ ut your window on a starry night. Existence just IS. It cannot be explained or fathomed.

…One cannot say that self existent entity E brought itself into existence. E just is.
...…

So?

….Can E be said to have created itself? .….

No -and why would either itself or anything else need to have “created” it?
Why couldn’t it have just existed after a point of time X and not before X without explanation
(not either a known explanation or with an unknown explanation in reality) and without involving causality and thus wasn’t “created”?
-and it just “is” at time X onwards and just “isn’t” before time X.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Rubbish! I believe God is the Uncaused Cause of everything. I have no problem with a causeless entity or phenomena. All I am saying is this " boy , what an unfathomable mystery that is ".

You are contradicting yourself. Either it is an unfathomable mystery or it is not. If to you it is an unfathomable mystery then you clearly do have a problem visualizing it.

There's no explaining it or understanding it. It's you that seems to have the problem because you talk about a causeless existence as if it's just a run of the mill thing without realise the mystery of it.
Since we do not really know what 'normal' is, I see no reason not to think that it is 'run of the mill'.

My main disagreement with you is that you always assume that the world is known to work in causal chains and that that is 'run of the mill'. I have frequently pointed out to you that that is not the case at all yet you continue to disregard my arguments and act like your concept is an obvious fact.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…One cannot say that self existent entity E brought itself into existence. E just is.
...…

So?

….Can E be said to have created itself? .….

No -and why would either itself or anything else need to have “created” it?
Why couldn’t it have just existed after a point of time X and not before X without explanation
(not either a ...[text shortened]... and thus wasn’t “created”?
-and it just “is” at time X onwards and just “isn’t” before time X.[/b]

.........and the fact that it has no explanation is what makes it mysterious , yes?

You talk so matter of factly about something that is entirely inexplicable.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You are contradicting yourself. Either it is an unfathomable mystery or it is not. If to you it is an unfathomable mystery then you clearly do have a problem visualizing it.

[b]There's no explaining it or understanding it. It's you that seems to have the problem because you talk about a causeless existence as if it's just a run of the mill thing withou et you continue to disregard my arguments and act like your concept is an obvious fact.

Are you seriously saying that you don't find the puzzle of existence the least bit mysterious?

Do you really think that in some distant future scientists will be able to say "Oh , of course , it all makes sense now - that's how it all happened!"

My view is that this point can never be reached. It's like counting an "infinite" number - you can always add one to it. It's unfathomable. It (existence) can be visualised in a way , but never completely - just like we can symbolise infinity and talk about it - but it's still beyond us.

I think it's you that has the problem just accepting this basic self evident fact about existence. It's no me that has the problem visualising it , it's YOU that has the problem thinking it can be fully visualised. That's your error.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]I think your distinction is just wordplay.

Well, it's not. I'm not sure how else to explain this to you. In the cosmological argument, some like to break it down into 3 options -- very, very roughly, something like: explained by another; explained by itself; explained by nothing. Now, if you cannot understand that these people intend to convey two different things with the second and third options, then I cannot help you here.[/b]

I understand the distinction but to me it's not relevant because all three are ultimately mysterious and can offer no complete watertight explanation of existence.

Even God cannot offer this. His existence is inexplicable and unfathomable.

Why do you think that minor distinctions have any relevance to this? You can talk about brute facts , something from nothing , eternity , quantum events , something from nothing , self existence etc etc ----It's all the same to me , they are all mysterious and offer no rational explanation.

I don't expect a rational explanation - I'm just saying that there is none and none to be expected. So where do we need to go then once we have realised this?On the mystery - rationality spectrum we must move towards a more mystical , contemplative outlook of existence.

There's no point in making distinctions or trying to understand it - it can never be done. Once you find any explanation you are instantly required to find another.

Do you know Goedel's incompleteness theorem?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Are you seriously saying that you don't find the puzzle of existence the least bit mysterious?

I understand what you are saying and on the whole agree with you. However 'mysterious' is not the word I would use. I also do not focus on the beginning or cause of existence. I think there are necessarily some 'brute facts' and that those 'brute facts' have to do with how existence works not just how it started. I think that once we know how it works we may know how it started (or didn't start as the case may be), but I don't think there is an ultimate answer to why it works that way.

Do you really think that in some distant future scientists will be able to say "Oh , of course , it all makes sense now - that's how it all happened!"
I don't see why not. What I don't think they will answer is why it all happened that way.

It's no me that has the problem visualising it , it's YOU that has the problem thinking it can be fully visualised. That's your error.
Just to put my 'can't visualize' comment in context my issue is that you are whole heartedly convinced that the world work in causal chains and you color your thinking with that belief. To hit the mystery you don't need to look for the start of the universe you simply need to look at a single quantum event and ask 'why did it happen this way'? Is it cause or uncaused and if is uncaused then why that particular random result? But you are prevented from asking that question and the further question 'is the result of every quantum event a brute fact' by your unfounded belief that existence works by means of causal chains.

What I find most interesting in the whole subject is that causal chains work both ways - the future causes the present just like the past does and we can follow the chains in both directions. The arrow of time is merely an illusion caused by the fact that entropy is increasing in one direction causing the impact of random quantum effects to make our ability to trace causal chains into the future much harder than following them into the past.

Originally posted by knightmeister
.........and the fact that it has no explanation is what makes it mysterious , yes?

You talk so matter of factly about something that is entirely inexplicable.

….........and the fact that it has no explanation is what makes it mysterious , yes?
...…

No.

I have already explained why but, yet again, I take it then you have just simply ignored (or at least pretend to ignore?) all my arguments I presented instead of giving any kind of intelligent counter argument.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I understand what you are saying and on the whole agree with you. However 'mysterious' is not the word I would use. I also do not focus on the beginning or cause of existence. I think there are necessarily some 'brute facts' and that those 'brute facts' have to do with how existence works not just how it started. I think that once we know how it works we ...[text shortened]... al chains into the future much harder than following them into the past.

KM----Do you really think that in some distant future scientists will be able to say "Oh , of course , it all makes sense now - that's how it all happened!"

WHITE- I don't see why not. What I don't think they will answer is why it all happened that way

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can definitely see why not. In order to understand how something happens properly we need to understand the why or the cause. We can only understand the "how" to a point.

For example , one might say that the universe randomly "emerged" as a result of quantum fluctuations or some other theory. One could even go into great detail about "how" this worked. But even with a million years of detailled explanation the question would no doubt remain "why the quantum fluctuations anyway?" OR "how did this state of affairs exist?"

I think that regarding questions of the ultimate origins of all existence the "why" and the "how" are intimately connected . I don't see how they can be separated. If one says taht they have found the ultimate "how" of existence then really they have found the "why" as well . If they haven't then there must be some deeper "how" that has yet to be found.

How does existence exist?
Why does existence exist ?(as opposed to no existence at all)

To me there's a cigarette paper between the two questions , if that.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]….........and the fact that it has no explanation is what makes it mysterious , yes?
...…

No.

I have already explained why but, yet again, I take it then you have just simply ignored (or at least pretend to ignore?) all my arguments I presented instead of giving any kind of intelligent counter argument.[/b]

So , even though existence itself may forever be inexplicable to science , you still do not accept it as a mystery?

Surely the very definition of a mystery is that it cannot be explained. Maybe for you it is too much of an emotive word? Or suggestive of other ideas?

I don't know. All I know is that the interesting thing about existence is not that it cannot be explained , but that it cannot ever logically be explained. The possibility of an explanation is logically contrary to the essence of the problem because any explanation will require further explanation ad infinitum.

As I have said to whitey , it's like trying to count to infinity and then thinking you have got there. It's a logical impossibility.

The moment you say "...and the reason why existence exists is......"

I will then ask " ...and why does that reason exist?"

It's a line that cannot be crossed. Science simply cannot win.

If it's not a mystery then the answer certainly lies outside the realms of rationality or science. The answer of course is that there is no answer.

Please do tell me you have thought this through.