BITTERS by Joe Fisher

Joe

You cannot, obviously, but this is not what I am saying. All we really know about existence is that it occurs (which must be unique), but there is alteration, ie it occurs differently (which must be a different unique). If you watch anything long enough you will see change to 'it'. If you want to get on with life, then put it under an electron microscope, and at the level of differentiation that is capable of, you will see more change. So what we conceptualise as 'existence', ie bush, toe, etc, is not what occurs. It only appears to be a persistent entity, because we are deeming it so from the perspective of superficial characteristics. In terms of its existence, it is really a sequence of physically existent states, which just appear the same at a higher level.

Or to put it another way. " Existence can only occur in one unique physical state once". Exactly. But it does not stay in that state, does it? The point is that you are equating that state with 'objects' as conceptualised by us, not how those 'objects' physically occur.

Paul

Joe

This is the last time I am going to repeat this.

"Existence is occurring in one unique physical state once." Yes, obviously. But equally obviously, it does not stay in that state, does it? In other words, objects are not one physically existent state, they just appear to us to be so.

Paul

No, but existence des not occur just the once does it? What we refer to as the bush (or whatever) 'alters'.

Paul

Have you checked out this place and how does it align with your ideas?

Hi Joe,

I just read your submission and I am amused. That is not what I was expecting. It is your last sentence that is the most profound. "I have never really been interested in logic." It reminds me of an ancient greek discussion in logic that starts off with this statement; "I am Cretean, and all Creteans are liars". There were connundrums all over your submission. Here is another example; "Light cannot move through light." Yet I am sure you have seen two flashlights cross beams. Here is another example; "The Universe is not all that difficult to understand. If you are familiar with the Rock, Paper Scissors hand gesture selection game, you have already acquired all of the information you will ever need in order to understand how the Universe actually operates." But I am sure you know that if we really understood how the the universe operates then we could solve the issue of death. I am not seeing the issue of death being resolved in the rock, paper, scissors game. Here is another example; "However, as the snowflake studies and the DNA and fingerprints studies have shown, there is only one of anything real or imagined once." Yet you use the number 2 as if there were a second snowflake, or second fingerprint, or second DNA. It is stated in the scienfic literure that all of your cells contain indentical copies of your DNA except for you sex cells. That is identical in relationship to the information that the DNA contains not in the exact atomic configurations. I reserve the best one for last. "All information is abstract codswallop." Was I informed by your "abstract codswallop"

Anyway, it is good to see you still kicking.

Jim Akerlund

Joe

"Paul,

Because you lost the argument on my blog, I am going to respond here. I have never "conceived" of my toe. You apparently do not know the difference between conception and perception, just as your version of existentialism has prevented you from understanding what the word last actually means."

Perception is conception. You speak of a unique state. But what you are referring to is not a physically unique state. It is how we perceive/conceive reality, for fairly obvious reasons, ie we need to get on with life.

What is existent, ie determines the reality at that time, is the physically existent state of whatever comprises it. Objects 'exist', in the sense of what we think are objects, in a sequence of discrete definitive physically existent states. You know this. Take any object, and you know it does not continue to exist in the same state. The bush is unique, there is only one bush, it is different from other bushes, the garden wall, birds in the garden, etc. But in terms of physical existence, bush is ontologically incorrect. It just looks as if it is the same thing physically, because we are defining bush on the basis of superficial physical characteristics.

Paul

Joe

The point is about what constitutes uniqueness in existence.

Paul

Joe

Indeed, as I keep saying. But the question is, what is unique? What we refer to as St Pauls (or any other such thing) is not unique over time. What is unique is its physically existent state at any given time. So what we know of as St Pauls, or any other thing, does not physically exist. A sequence of physically existent states is what occurs, which, at a higher level of conception give the appearance of continuation.

Paul

Joe

I am fully aware there is no such thing as time in any given reality, by definition, it occurs once and is a unique physically existent state. Reality is only spatial. Time is concerned with the rate of change to the subsequent reality in the sequence. So there is only ever a 'present' which exists. The point is that what exists is a physically existent state of whatever comprises it, not the objects as we conceive them. Which is what I said at the outset and have been repeating ever since.

Here is a quote from your essay:

"The fact is that had I truly wished to find out anything about a real toe, the only way I could have done so would have been by taking my shoes and socks off and by looking at one of my real toes. Real snowflakes are unique. Real toes are unique. I presently possess a set of real toes no other person who has ever lived, who is presently alive, or who will ever live anywhere in the future, had, has, or will ever come to possess"

At any given time the reality which manifests as your toe is different from any other time. It is not your toe, or snowflake, or whatever, that is unique. As conceived this does not physically exist. What is unique, and what exists at any given time is a physically existent state of the 'thing'. The 'thing' only appears as a 'thing' because we are defining 'thing' on the basis of superficial physical characteristics, which are not what physically occurs. Indeed, we even rationalise that conception by speaking of 'it changes', when it does at this superficial level. Which is of course a contradiction, because if it has changed, then it is no longer it, it is something else.

Paul