> Propositions are in the same category as sentences, as far as their dependency on representation is concerned.

What evidence do you have of this being the case?

Think about what it would mean for the truth of "Snow is white" if it was dependent upon how it was represented. If you can represent something in more than one way, then that thing is not dependent upon its representation.

> Take a random proposition that you think would have evaluated to true in the past, before humans existed, if an entity capable of evaluating the proposition had been around. Now, subtract from the concept that you have in your mind everything that is simply the (physical) world as it is (i.e., the "testable"/empirical aspects referenced by the proposition). What do you have left that could be considered to exist in any meaningful sense, absent a (physical) representation expressing the abstraction?

You would have nothing, but you removed the physical world and have removed the propositions that go along with that world. The proposition "Snow is white" depends on the existence of snow being white, and it does not depend on the sentence "Snow is white".

That being said, the proposition "1 < 2" does not depend on anything physical. So you can removed all physical things, and "1 < 2" will still be true under the Peano axioms.

>> What evidence do you have that establishes this as true?

> "It has not been demonstrated that you can use the testable patterns to demonstrate the existence of untestable abstract ideas."

Not to be a burden, but to respond to your question could you give me a refresh: What are you considering to be a testable pattern? What are you considering to be an untestable abstract idea?

>> To have objective reality or being.

> And how would you define "objective reality" and "being"?

Objective reality: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts regarding the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

> Those seem to me more like synonyms than definitions!?

Uhh... the composition of words in a definition is synonymous with what they are defining. If you only use one word to define something, then that word is a synonym... I don't understand the point of this complaint. If you think the definition is wrong or obscure then please state why.

Perhaps you don't like the definition because you are trying to find something that implies physicality? I got the definition straight from google... Is there some other dictionary you'd like to suggest?

>> I did not define "potential" as "possible", I defined it as "possible state".

> So ... where you wrote "potential state", you meant "possible state state"?! ... Or in other words: a state can not be current and possible at the same time. What did I miss?

Oof, cleaning up it is... let's start from scratch (the "same time" stuff has been removed as I am acknowledging that it made no sense):

(Potential = possibility; actually = currently)

===========================================================================================================================================================

A) If it is not the case that the potential for the universe being in a different state actually exists, then it is not the case that the universe can change states.

B) The universe can change states.

C) If the potential for the universe being in a different state is physical, then the potential for the universe being in a different state would be observable.

D) If the potential for the universe being in a different state is observable, then the potential for the universe being in a different state would have qualities which can be scientifically observed.

E) It is not the case that the potential for the universe being in a different state has qualities which can be scientifically observed.

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

F) The potential for the universe being in a different state actually exists. (modus tollens A,B)

G) It is not the case that the potential for the universe being in a different state is observable. (modus tollens D,E)

H) It is not the case that the potential for the universe being in a different state is physical. (modus tollens C,G)

I) The potential for the universe being in a different state actually exists, and it is not the case that the potential for the universe being in a different state is physical. (conjunction introduction F,H)

===========================================================================================================================================================

>> Morality: Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

> Well, as above: How would you define "right", "wrong", "good", and "bad" (in this context)?

Right/Good behavior is an act which is in accordance with what God wills.

Wrong/Bad behavior is and act which is not in accordance with what God wills.