Scientists...Got it wrong again!

[WaveStrider]

Quote from stu:

Quote from WaveStrider:
"Though I suppose, since time is being used as the measuring stick, one could argue that a "Creator" and "Existence" both occur at the same instant - no time lapse. Existence and awareness of existence simultaneously."



......


Was it possible or not?
In hindsight, was there a potential (existing in possibility) for a "Creator" and "Existence" to both occur at the same instant ?



If ..don't know, then does one not ask if there were no possibility, then how come existence is possible?

If there was, then didn't that potential (in hindsight) exist?

If not and there was no "Creator and no "Existence" and the possibility did not exist, how come existence exists although it was not possible?

Not sure what you are proposing here.
Your questions appear to all originate from hindsight. However, if we are looking at "existence" - creation on the 1st order (like the Big Bang) there is a point of pre-Big Bang where there is no hindsight.


Maybe it will clarify if you answer these questions:

1) What is unrealized potential to you - existence or non-existence?

2) If (hypothesized) potential NEVER manifests itself into a concrete phenomenon, then can you state absolutely that potential exists.

 

[stu]

Quote from WaveStrider:

Not sure what you are proposing here.
Your questions appear to all originate from hindsight. However, if we are looking at "existence" - creation on the 1st order (like the Big Bang) there is a point of pre-Big Bang where there is no hindsight.


Maybe it will clarify if you answer these questions:

1) What is unrealized potential to you - existence or non-existence?

2) If (hypothesized) potential NEVER manifests itself into a concrete phenomenon, then can you state absolutely that potential exists.

I'm not really proposing anything in there.
I simply have 3 questions I would like you to respond to so I might better understand how you may not be trying to stand across and hold all sides of an argument at once.


Anyway now you have some too so , here is my response to yours….


1) What is unrealized potential to you - existence or non-existence?

Potential is Existing in possibility. Unrealized potential is an existing possibility not (yet) made actual.
unrealized potential existence, is an existing possibility for existence not (yet) made actual.



2) If potential NEVER manifests itself into a concrete phenomenon, then can you state absolutely that potential exists.

I’m not doing that. If potential NEVER manifests itself into a concrete phenomenon it’s still potential and as such exists. If it isn’t , then why call it potential (existing in possibility)?

When those things are what they say they are, they exist.

Hope that clarifies, would you answer mine please?

 

[stu]

Quote from WaveStrider:


Potential can only be claimed in hindsight. Otherwise it is potential...for what?

......

Your questions appear to all originate from hindsight. However, if we are looking at "existence" - creation on the 1st order (like the Big Bang) there is a point of pre-Big Bang where there is no hindsight.

Also...that might well be causing some confusion ! Please clarify

 

[WaveStrider]

Quote from stu:

I'm not really proposing anything in there.
I simply have 3 questions I would like you to respond to so I might better understand how you may not be trying to stand across and hold all sides of an argument at once.


Anyway now you have some too so , here is my response to yours….


1) What is unrealized potential to you - existence or non-existence?

Potential is Existing in possibility. Unrealized potential is an existing possibility not (yet) made actual.
unrealized potential existence, is an existing possibility for existence not (yet) made actual.



2) If potential NEVER manifests itself into a concrete phenomenon, then can you state absolutely that potential exists.

I’m not doing that. If potential NEVER manifests itself into a concrete phenomenon it’s still potential and as such exists. If it isn’t , then why call it potential (existing in possibility)?

When those things are what they say they are, they exist.

Hope that clarifies, would you answer mine please?

Ok - your questions are all affirmative because they are all grounded in hindsight. That makes the answers pre-determined.

However, the non-manifested potential exists - but only in THEORY, not actuality. That is why it is hypothesized only. However, hypotheses can be wrong, and the potential may not exist at all.

However, if for argument's sake the potential itself is sufficient to qualify as existence, then the "imaginary sky fairies" you mentioned also have the potential to exist.

 

[stu]

Quote from WaveStrider:

Ok - your questions are all affirmative because they are all grounded in hindsight. That makes the answers pre-determined.

Sorry that doesn't make sense to me.
Answers are not pre-determined because questions are grounded in hindsight . That does not follow at all.

on the contrary.....

Quote from WaveStrider:

Potential can only be claimed in hindsight. Otherwise it is potential...for what?

That claims your knowledge of potential which makes your rhetorical answer to it informed not pre-determined.
Potential can be claimed or supported in advance, on evidence. That's how things can be predicted and shown to exist before proof.

Quote from WaveStrider:

However, the non-manifested potential exists - but only in THEORY, not actuality. That is why it is hypothesized only. However, hypotheses can be wrong, and the potential may not exist at all.

But existence does exist, so potential for it cannot be said to be only hypothesized non manifested.

If there never were potential existing for it, then there would be no possibility of the manifestation .
With no potential, no possibility, no existence. That is clearly not the case

Quote from WaveStrider:

However, if for argument's sake the potential itself is sufficient to qualify as existence, then the "imaginary sky fairies" you mentioned also have the potential to exist.

Only they don't exist as fact. But Existence does. As a fact.

The potential for sky fairies may or may not exist. There may well be a potential for their non-existence.
That answer is affirmative too and grounded in hindsight. If I take what you say as correct, no sky fairies or God or Creator is pre-determined.

Yet there IS existence. Existence does lead to a certain paramountcy over all things.

 

[WaveStrider]

Quote from stu:

Sorry that doesn't make sense to me.
Answers are not pre-determined because questions are grounded in hindsight . That does not follow at all.

on the contrary.....


That claims your knowledge of potential which makes your rhetorical answer to it informed not pre-determined.
Potential can be claimed or supported in advance, on evidence. That's how things can be predicted and shown to exist before proof.


But existence does exist, so potential for it cannot be said to be only hypothesized non manifested.

If there never were potential existing for it, then there would be no possibility of the manifestation .
With no potential, no possibility, no existence. That is clearly not the case


Only they don't exist as fact. But Existence does. As a fact.

The potential for sky fairies may or may not exist. There may well be a potential for their non-existence.
That answer is affirmative too and grounded in hindsight. If I take what you say as correct, no sky fairies or God or Creator is pre-determined.

Yet there IS existence. Existence does lead to a certain paramountcy over all things.

Again, your argument of existence is hindsight. "There IS existence" is like my saying "There IS ice cream". Yes, of course. By hindsight, it was invented at some point.

"The potential for sky fairies may or may not exist. There may well be a potential for their non-existence. "

This is the first time you have stated that a potential may not exist. That is because you do not have the luxury of hindsight to say they do. That is why all statements made with the aid of hindsight are circular. It is because it is.

However, unrealized potential, existing only as potential, which may or MAY NOT be there, (again, it required a move from an uncertain state to a known state of "existing" as proof of the potential even existing at all) is not equated with existence without hindsight affirmation.

We may have to agree to disagree on this one.

I believe hypothetical potential without materialization is uncertainty. Potential may or may not exist in that case. That is without placing the statement in a context of hindsight. Without manifestation of that potential, all I could say is that I do not know if the potential is there or not. It may or may not exist.

I can place that statement pre-Big Bang and if the Big Bang never happens, it would still be true. When the Big Bang happens, then I can say the potential was there, but in hindsight.

 

[stu]

Quote from WaveStrider:

Again, your argument of existence is hindsight. "There IS existence" is like my saying "There IS ice cream". Yes, of course. By hindsight, it was invented at some point.

"The potential for sky fairies may or may not exist. There may well be a potential for their non-existence. "

This is the first time you have stated that a potential may not exist. That is because you do not have the luxury of hindsight to say they do. That is why all statements made with the aid of hindsight are circular. It is because it is.

However, unrealized potential, existing only as potential, which may or MAY NOT be there, (again, it required a move from an uncertain state to a known state of "existing" as proof of the potential even existing at all) is not equated with existence without hindsight affirmation.

We may have to agree to disagree on this one.

I believe hypothetical potential without materialization is uncertainty. Potential may or may not exist in that case. That is without placing the statement in a context of hindsight. Without manifestation of that potential, all I could say is that I do not know if the potential is there or not. It may or may not exist.

I can place that statement pre-Big Bang and if the Big Bang never happens, it would still be true. When the Big Bang happens, then I can say the potential was there, but in hindsight.

I think you are mixing two things up here.
My argument for/of existence is based on a fact. A fact of existence.
My argument for the possibility of existence is based on the fact of existence, not just hindsight.

"There IS ice cream". is a fact
there must have been a possibility of ice cream , not....
"it was invented at some point."
You're misleading the argument that way. Perhaps it's why it looks circular to you.


Then if the potential (possible existence) does not exist, ask yourself what does?
Nothing exists?

My point is not a conclusion, you seem to be missing that.
It is that, with the fact of existence known. was its potential possible?

If so then it's potential must exist (have existed).
If not then how come in the knowledge existence exists, existence was not possible.?

MAY or MAY NOT, both lead to the fact of existence. Like the Ice Cream the possibility for both must exist(have existed)

You have still not answered those questions yet.


"I believe hypothetical potential without materialization is uncertainty. "

We have the materialization.
Hindsight did not pre-determine its potential !

 

[WaveStrider]

Quote from stu:

I think you are mixing two things up here.
My argument for/of existence is based on a fact. A fact of existence.
My argument for the possibility of existence is based on the fact of existence, not just hindsight.

"There IS ice cream". is a fact
there must have been a possibility of ice cream , not....
"it was invented at some point."
You're misleading the argument that way. Perhaps it's why it looks circular to you.


Then if the potential (possible existence) does not exist, ask yourself what does?
Nothing exists?

My point is not a conclusion, you seem to be missing that.
It is that, with the fact of existence known. was it's potential possible?

If so then it's potential must exist (have existed).
If not then how come in the knowledge existence exists, existence was not possible.?

MAY or MAY NOT, both lead to the fact of existence. Like the Ice Cream the possibility for both must exist(have existed)

You have still not answered those questions yet.


"I believe hypothetical potential without materialization is uncertainty. "

We have the materialization.

IF you are arguing from a predetermined point, (existence), then all you arguments do flow from hindsight. How can that not be?

I don't understand the questions, because if you start from a known, the questions are rhetorical.

My point is potential divorced from a known is uncertainty, and not existence. Move yourself to pre-Big Bang time. Can you state that the potential of the Big Bang is a fact - that the potential can be said to exist at that point? I say maybe, not yes.



At this point, if there is anyone nutty enough to have read this, can they chime in - maybe it will help clarify things.

I have repeatedly used the words "unrealized" and "unmaterialized" as not qualifying as existence. The word potential is by definition hypothetical and implies "not yet manifested".

Perhaps if stu restated his points and a 3rd party read them, they could clarify both.

 

[stu]

Quote from WaveStrider:

IF you are arguing from a predetermined point, (existence), then all you arguments do flow from hindsight. How can that not be?

I don't understand the questions, because if you start from a known, the questions are rhetorical.

My point is potential divorced from a known is uncertainty, and not existence. Move yourself to pre-Big Bang time. Can you state that the potential of the Big Bang is a fact - that the potential can be said to exist at that point? I say maybe, not yes.

I don't disagree with your point on hindsight . But that is not ALL that we have!

Potential is not divorced here. We have a known. We have a certainty.

It's a little strange to hear questions are rhetorical when starting from a known certainty.
I don't think that is a reasonable explanation for why you do not understand the questions

And no, when I move to Big Bang I cannot state that the potential of the Big Bang is a fact. That is more to do with uncertain information to with something ,that looking forward again, is a certainty .

After existence , after Big Bang, , I can propose two questions based on hindsight I agree, but not only hindsight, which lead to answers also based on information in a certainty as well as hindsight. Which means pre-determination is not the case when being informed by knowledge.

Potential is not all about uncertainty. Especially when there is a known directly associated to it.

 

[WaveStrider]

Quote from stu:


Potential is not all about uncertainty. Especially when there is a known directly associated to it.

Ok - this I agree with.

But maybe I'm just a bit dense - so if there is a 3rd party looking at this, can you comment? Another viewer may rephrase it in a way that sinks in better for me.