Ignostic Eclecticism

Despite my hostility toward definitions and their meaningful meaninglessness, it makes me quite content that I seem to have found a couple words that seem to define my religious perspective reasonably adequately - Ignostic Eclecticism!

(Wikipedia is such an incredible source of joy, thank you.) An atheist would say “I do not believe God exists”. An agnostic would say “I cannot know if God exists”. An ignostic would say “I cannot know if God exists if cannot know what is meant by “God exists”“.

But what would you call someone who would say “I cannot know whether I can know if God exists if can know neither what is meant by “God exists”, nor what is meant by “to know”“? And what would you call another someone who would say “I cannot know whether I can know what is meant by “I cannot know whether I can know if God exists if can know neither what is meant by “God exists”, nor what is meant by “to know”” if I cannot know what is meant by “meant”“? More comprehensibly, what would you call someone who would say “How could I possibly know whether I could know what is meant by anything at all (if I could not know whether I could know)^∞ what is meant by anything at all”? Most concisely, “(… uncertain certain…)^∞ uncertainty”.

And Eclecticism - I do not think it is in conflict with the concept (and/or definition) of Ignosticism to “use elements from multiple religions, applied philosophies, personal experiences or other texts and dogma to form beliefs and ideas, noting the similarities between existing systems and practices, and recognizing them as [internally] valid”.

Q&A

Q: "The only way for something to “not exist at all” is for no one to have ever even thought of it." is this necessarily true? what about all of the concepts that seem exist prior to our discovery or "awareness" of it? The field of mathematics, the numbers, concepts or sequences and series that infinitely exist, are we creating the patterns or do you think the patterns exist and we discover them?"

A: “The only way for something to “not exist at all” is for no one to have ever even thought of it.” Is this necessarily true? What about all of the concepts that seem exist prior to our discovery or “awareness” of it?

In short, something that exists now or in the past or future “exists” and therefore does not “not exist”. For something to “not exist at all” means that it never existed and never will exist, so math and the like that you’ve mentioned simply do not fall under this category. But of course that’s just another “definition” with zero relevance to “necessary truth” whatever that means, and right now I’m only arguing for the sake of the definition of “non-existence” I’ve created, which is in the grand search for meaning, supremely pointless, although not necessarily uninteresting.

On the other hand, whether mathematics, logic, and the like are “discovered” or “invented” is up to personal interpretation. There is no way of proving it, and since proof is based on logic, what it the point? Ever if we were to assume they were “discovered”, how do you know with certainty that they “existed” prior to discovery? The whole point is the existence of anything outside of awareness, whether in the past or future (or that would be non-sensical anyways because does time really exist outside of awareness anyways?), cannot be proved or disproved.

Perhaps you could try and distinguish things this way: that which has been “discovered” and exists in the present moment exists or does not exist with uncertainty in the past when it was not yet “discovered”. But in order for something to not exist definitively, it must not exist in any time, not in the past, now, or future, i.e. if can never “be discovered” because it does not exist, and in order for this to be true, no one must ever be able to think of if. So I suppose a slightly better way of trying to word it might be “the only way for something to “not exist at all” is for no one to have ever thought of it or ever be capable of thinking of it.” - which includes not only its possibility of existing in the past but also in the future.

I guess some people argue that the only things that “exist” are the things that exist in the “present moment”, but I don’t know what that means because I have no idea what “present moment” means or if it’s possible to have an infinitesimally small increment of time or if time even exists, and the existence of time outside of human perception can neither be proved nor disproved so long as you’re perceiving as a human. And of course this once again becomes a debate about what the word “exist” is defined as and the many other problematic words with definitions that it comes with.

Q: Why is it that various geologically isolated cultures “created”/”discovered” the same abstract patterns?

A: How should I know? Maybe it’s a property of the brain? Maybe we’re all aliens? Maybe we’re just all the same person? Maybe those things existed somewhere in the universe before? Etc., etc., I could come up with as many theories as I desire, but none of them could be “proven”, could they? And even if they could, what is the point of “proof”? What is “proof”?

Sets, Fractals, Whatever You Want to Call Them

In summary: The set of “existence” contains the set of “observed existence”. The set of “observed existence” may include less elements than the set of existence, or it may include the same number of elements (i.e. they are the same set). We set of “observed existence” contains the set of “human perceived existence”, and likewise the contained set may contain equal or less elements than the set that contains it (as well as the set that contains that set). Exceedingly simple. 

The one and only question are these all sets that contain more subsets and are contained by broader sets, or are they all the same set? What is the set of all sets? Think Mandelbrot Fractals. It is just that simple, and that complex. The inclusion of fancy and irrelevant words just complicates the story in an unnecessary and meaningless way - that is, if you assume they’re just elements of (part of) a set.

But in the end, anything is just a way of trying to make sense of things - a theory, no more, and no less - please, please don’t confuse a theory with what is or could be, don’t you realize how meaningless and at the same time all-meaningful that is?

Q&A

Q: "Im no empiricist, very feasible field of thought, but believing that "all i ever see is all there will ever be" is again making the assumption that I have Godlike ability to manipulate the fate of realities existence. One's existence or human functioning may be contingent to the creation of an objective something. Without an objective ideal there is no progress. even within the conception of subjectivity there is the assumption that all is objectively subjective. So there may be meaning."

A: It’s ok, I don’t know what “empiricist” really means anyways, but I’m afraid you seem to be interpreting a lot of which was not meant to be stated in the words - another problem of language, I suppose, so let’s dissect this first:

“All i ever see is all there will ever be” - I think you might have gotten that from this “Once you observe something, it intrinsically changes from unobserved to observed, and unless I simply assume that such universes without my conscious observance do not exist, and thereby not think of then, then they cannot exist as universes without conscious awareness.” Let me clarify again that the only thing I assert about existence is that you cannot prove or disprove the existence of anything that you do not perceive. This makes absolutely no assertion that nothing “can exist” outside of my perception, simply that it remains unfalsifiable.

What is meant by the second quotation (what I said previously) is simply this: Once I observe any given universe (whether it it through pure thought or physical manifestation or whatever), then conscious awareness exists in that universe. There was no attempted reference to anything about unobserved universes (which I emphasize again, you cannot prove or disprove the existence of). What I was trying to convey was that the only possible way for anything to “not exist at all” is for no one to have ever even thought of it, since once you think about it, it exists in the form of thought (in the realm of the universes of your mind or whatever you want to call it). Simply put, if something does not exist, then it must not be observed, but if something is not observed, that does not imply it does not exist, i.e. observed existence is a subset of existence. Or more efficiently, I said “if not B then not A”, which implies “if A then B” but not (as you seem to have assumed) ”if B then A” - simple first order logic.

The paradox does not like within the faulty application of logic though. This presents a different level of inquiry, that is, where does the set of logical applications lie? If it’s merely a set with in the set of all possible existence, why should I care whether its rules are applied correctly and whether this has any relevance to whether something exists or not? i.e., if I showed with logic a consistent theory of what I intend to call existing or not existing, then all I did was that - it has nothing to do with any further nature of existence, assuming that there is more to meaning than definitions and man-invented premises.

Ok, so now even if you did assume that I implied “if B then A” (if existence, then observance) why is that the equivalent of “making the assumption that I have Godlike ability to manipulate the fate of realities existence”? Why did this just become a discussion on a more superficial level of “ability”, “God”, “fate”, “reality”? The only thing we were talking about was the relation between “existence” and “observance” nothing else. Nowhere was there ever a mention of “human functioning” or any sort of limited human perception. Perhaps it’s just difficult to convey exactly what is meant by “observance”? All that it meant by that is the act of conscious perception, with no reference to human perception in particular, but only awareness.

Lastly, “one’s existence or human functioning may be contingent to the creation of an objective something […] even within the conception of subjectivity there is the assumption that all is objectively subjective.” - what does this mean? What is meant by “objectively subjective”? I feel like all that is really trying to be said is that there exist things outside of observance (a.k.a. conscious subjective perception). Yes, as implied by what I said in the first place (if not B then not A), existence is a set that includes the subset of observed existence (it is not true that if not A then not B).

Q&A

Q: "Elevated self importance in that the natural human tendency to relate all to one’s personal existence. Can you really assume your omnipresence? it seems that a major component to your conception of reality is the ability for there to be a manipulation in the space-time continuum or the fabric of some sense of reality as a result of human mental manipulation (hinging the reality of a phenomena {observed=unobserved} on the presence/lack thereof of your sense perception. also,The thing is about paradox’s is that they do not defy existence so much as they defy the reasoning made in the deductions prior to, My pointing out of the paradox was more of a means of making you question the conclusion in that single theory, can every possible chance (in the same multi-verse) exist at the same time? is there a line to be drawn on that separates the realms of reality if, by this reasoning, their existence contradicts? Non-existence is hinged on existence, you cannot have the concept of existence without the concept of non existence because with no contrast or polar opposite one can not know of either side. ( ex. We dont know what Cold is without measuring the amount of heat, vice versa, you dont know what light is without the existence of darkness) Parallelism may not be feasible because one can not know the outcome of said probability unless all other possibilities never happened. or to stretch even further, The existence of one universe may be hinged on the non existence of all others, or our knowledge or existence in one universe may be hinged on our non existence in others."

A: To clarify, all I assert is you cannot prove or disprove the existence of anything that is not consciously perceived by yourself. This has absolutely nothing to do with how or whether “human perception”, either sensory or mental is capable of experiencing whatever happens to exist. So no, I don’t believe “elevated self importance” according to how you’ve defined it is at all a key to what I posit - again, all I’m saying is whatever you do not “perceive” (through thought, imagination, comprehension or whatever other form of non-human perception that cannot be understood through human experience), its existence can neither be proved nor disproved. There is a big difference between simply “observing” something, that is, to consciously perceive it in one way or another and to “observe through human perception” - to assert that all that could ever exist lies within the set of the latter would obviously be short-sighted, and is not what I posit. In other words, by supposing that that which cannot be perceived cannot be proved or disproved to exist, it does not in any way exclude the possibility of experience that has not yet been experienced or comprehended previously.

You cannot know what light is without knowing darkness, but there is a very important distinction to make that involves “conscious” perception or awareness of what you are perceiving. That is, a person who has been blind from birth supposedly “perceives” darkness for his whole life, but you cannot say that only darkness exists for him and not light, not because “objectively” (whatever that means) darkness can only exist with light, but because he has never been consciously aware that this perception of absence of light was in fact a perception. For him, the existence or non existence of light can neither be proved nor disproved, but only understood theoretically and not experientially, and the problem of existence again becomes simply a matter of what you are willing to define as existence.

Your question - in a single theory, can every possible chance exist at the same time? - Why not? Is this not at the heart of quantum mechanics? In the absence of the act of “observation” (perception, consciousness, whatever you want to call it), all possible outcomes exist simultaneously, and yet upon observation the wave function collapses altogether leaving only a single outcome. It seems like the debate you are raising is only a matter of what to define as “reality” - only the collapsed wave function because it is not within the human realm of comprehension to understand what it means to have all possibilities exist simultaneously? Is this not the very supposition you were arguing against when you question the absurdity of “elevated self importance” in the set of all possible universes? On a grander scale, probability itself is just another human-comprehensible theory. What has whether or not something is consistent with “probability theory” as comprehended by man got anything to do with the vast sea of other possibilities that cannot be comprehended? Why should comprehension be a premise of perception?

Q&A

Q: "I'm not sure the sci-fi depiction of reality is feasible. What if there are billions of universes that exist in the theoretical realm, (the realm of perfection as plato called it, of the fibinacci sequences nature, and time) their existence is arguably just as real as ours, simply the collision of probability and predestination and manipulation by man(free will) determines the path of the reality we perceive subjectively."

A: What exactly is “the sci-fi depiction of reality”? Infinite universes already exist in the theoretical realm, and their existence as “real” depends entirely on your definition of “real” which becomes quite a meaningless distinction. Does “objective perception” have any meaning at all? To perceive is an inherently subjective act unless of course you suppose that all you perceive is all there will ever be, which can neither be proved nor disproved, but in the case that it’s true, there would be no distinction between objective and subjective, would there?

Q&A

Q: "It seems that you have this conception of elevated self importance in your multi-verse theory. Why is it that one's self has to permeate through all layers of the multiple universes? (multiple realities of one's self) In your theory it seems that parallelism and adjacent universes is key, but in a system of billions of different possibilities is parallelism even possible? ex. A "universe" where a multiverse exists, being parallel to a universe where there is nothing but singularity=a paradox."

A: What do you mean by “elevated self importance”? And what does “one’s self” mean? True, it would be absurd if my “identity as a person” had to permeate through all possible universes, but unless I am consciously aware in that universe, I cannot know that it exists. Of course I could suppose that there are infinite other universes where I am not consciously present, but once I think about the existence of that universe, am I not then present and part of that universe which exists in my mind? Once you observe something, it intrinsically changes from unobserved to observed, and unless I simply assume that such universes without my conscious observance do not exist, and thereby not think of then, then they cannot exist as universes without conscious awareness - obviously a paradox. But what does it mean to be a “paradox”? What is wrong or right about being a paradox? Why must being paradoxical entail non-existence?

In a system of “billions of different possibilities” but not infinite, how should I know whether parallelism is possible or what that even means? Why would it? Why wouldn’t it? But in an infinite set of possibilities, obviously it must.