TheJackelantern wrote:It's the fact that everything is
of existence, as in
made of existence and
follows the rules of existence....
You're
equivocating at either one of two points.
What is existence? According to you, it is either "the set of everything which exists" or alternately "that entity which grounds the possibility of everything else's existence." (Assuming I have interpreted you correctly, which considering your strange and sometimes plain incorrect use of words, is a hefty assumption.)
First, you state that everything is "of" existence, i.e. everything is grounded in that thing which is
existence. You also state that everything in existence follows the "rules of existence," which I would postulate that you mean that
existence is this entity by which these rules are propagated.
But you also turn around and say everything is "made of existence," so here it is apparent that you want to identify that this existence entity is the same as the set of everything which exists; in other words, a monistic whole and simple. This is, as you would be right to infer, a more or less pantheistic conception.
The problem is that you have not demonstrated any line of reasoning that gets you from "There is an entity,
existence, that grounds everything else in existence" to "This entity,
existence, is everything else in existence."
You need to be a lot more careful in the construction of your own argument, and be much less apt to assume that the problem lies in your opponent's, aka me, lack of background knowledge. I have a decent amount of background knowledge, and I have no idea where you are coming from. It is apparent that you haven't gotten your ideas from any other philosophers or that you've even attempted to understand how your ideas relate to others'. Perhaps there is some Ayn Rand ("Existence exists" and all), which is what you would expect an otherwise unread person's extent of philosophical background to consist in.
consciousness can't exist without causation
A tendentious claim that, I am noting for the purposes of keeping this discussion in focus, you haven't begun to demonstrate, aside from throwing a lot more of the same hooplah which you also refuse to explain in terms that others would understand.
yes, everything has informational value and complexity
It appears you don't think that by "information" you mean "contingent." So, what again do you mean by "information?" Give me a definition and several examples of information in things.
The way you are using the word, it seems to be a catch-all argumentative MacGuffin that can be applied at any point in any argument to derive whatever conclusion you would like.
Ok, explain biochemistry, how your computer works, how snowflakes form, or how you managed to post that argument... You think it's magic? How much do you know about electromagnetism? Apparently not a whole lot.
This is, in the strictest sense, hooplah.
Do you understand what the words "necessary" and "contingent" mean?
Energy in science is equal to information..
It is? I haven't heard a single scientist propose such a thing.
energy =/= information = force = causation
Considering the way you use words in ways that no one else does, I reckon its nigh impossible I could understand what you mean here.
If you don't understand information science and information theory, I suggest you go back and read my posts on the subject.
Reading those again won't help, since I am seeking clarification about the concepts you brought up in those.
You can't answer them because doing so actually proves my point. Hence, you can't do anything without actually proving the point being made. That includes your ability to sit there and contemplate it all.
This seems to me how your argumentative strategy runs;
1) Use a bunch of nifty scientific sounding words in ways that no one else does
2) Refuse to give working definitions of those words or at least conform to the way everyone else speaks about the concepts being spoken of
3) Tell my opponent he has lost the debate because I won't clarify
I am trying much harder to understand your position in this than I need to. Unless you are actually interested in attempting to communicate your ideas in a manner conciliatory to the mode of discussion, there's really no reason for me to keep trying.
