But the rules of your game preclude any such possibility. We must speak/write of things but the moment we do, the things we speak/write about exist. It's like inventing a game where you, the inventor, can't lose. The commendable creativity aside, you won't find people who'll play this game. Even if they do, they'll spend most of the time commenting on your rules (as you can see)... — TheMadFool

So beings come into existence; exist in only one way, shape, form, constitution, state, etc.; and then, while in that same way, shape, form, constitution, state, etc., lose their existence and cease to exist?

A is a small puddle of water. We place A in an ice cube tray and freeze it. A ceases to exist? Or A exists in a different form: an ice cube?

If A ceased to exist then the ice cube must be a completely different being, B. How did B come into existence?

One minute B did not exist. The next minute B existed. Therefore, one minute B categorically did not exist.

But I don't think that that is how anything works. A changed form. Nothing more, nothing less.

I also don't understand how if categorical nonexistence is possible, everything has to be random. Please explain... — TheMadFool

If B did not exist and then suddenly came into existence, what non-random thing explains the latter?

What I can see from your posts is you're drifting, purposely(?), into some kind of determinism. Can you elaborate on that? — TheMadFool

I thought I was being a philosopher and going wherever reason takes me, not purposefully following some script.

And the more I wrote the more I thought, "I am starting to sound like Ken Wilber". I have never heard of Ken Wilber being a determinist.

I want to know how we don't know that Harry Potter has always existed, has been evolving since the beginning of space and time, at this stage in the evolution of the universe is in the form of mental images in certain people's minds, and later will be in the form of an autonomous physical person like Vladimir Putin.

Maybe at some point everybody here was like Harry Potter is now?

Suppose I have the thought that Earth might have another moon, call it "Luna2." If I determine that there is no celestial object that actually qualifies to be called a moon of Earth, I'll say, "Luna2 does not exist."

You will say that Luna2 does exist, as an idea. Okay, Luna2 is an idea. What sort of idea? Is Luna2 an idea of something? If so, what?

A triangular circle is a circle that is not a circle, so a circle and a non-circle are the same thing: there is no difference between a circle and a non-circle. — litewave

You're assuming that triangular circle exists (as in exists physically). It doesn't and can't exist in our universe.

Once you assume the existence of a circle that is a non-circle you abandon the principle of non-contradiction. From that moment, all your arguments automatically refute themselves. — litewave

Within where a circle that is not a circle exists, yes. The concept of a circle that is not a circle exists within my imagination, not physically (because it's logically impossible for such a thing to physically exist). That means I can abandon the principle of non-contradiction within my imagination, not within physical reality. That means I can imagine my arguments refuting themselves, but in reality they don't.

Secondly, if I could abandon the principle of non-contradiction within our physical reality that'd mean my arguments would also automatically not refute themselves.

Thirdly, you yourself have shown to be capable of imagining the abandoning of the principle of non-contradiction

You're assuming that triangular circle exists (as in exists physically). It doesn't and can't exist in our universe. — BlueBanana

It can't exist anywhere, not just in our universe.

Within where a circle that is not a circle exists, yes. The concept of a circle that is not a circle exists within my imagination, not physically (because it's logically impossible for such a thing to physically exist). — BlueBanana

Your word "concept" seems key here. When you imagine a circle that is not a circle, in your imagination is a collection of thoughts that refers to nothing, because a circle that is not a circle is nothing. If you don't assume that this "nothing" exists, you can be consistent.

Secondly, if I could abandon the principle of non-contradiction within our physical reality that'd mean my arguments would also automatically not refute themselves. — BlueBanana

I don't think that works. If you abandon the principle of non-contradiction within something, what is the difference between "within" and "without"? From a contradiction, anything (and the opposite of anything) follows.

Thirdly, you yourself have shown to be capable of imagining the abandoning of the principle of non-contradiction — BlueBanana

I don't think I can imagine that. It would be to imagine nothing.

So beings come into existence; exist in only one way, shape, form, constitution, state, etc.; and then, while in that same way, shape, form, constitution, state, etc., lose their existence and cease to exist? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

The way I see it is a particular form of a thing acquires an identity over and above that given by its composition. For example, take metal, plastic, rubber and glass and make a car. These materials have their own existence and yet, they interact to create a car whose identity as a vehicle is something more. Further interaction with its owner and his/her family will add to this identity. However, a time will come when it will be discarded, dismantled into its composite parts. We could say that it has simply changed form but it has lost the identity it acquired over its lifetime as a car. We could then say it changed its form into, hopefully, fond memories, pictures, etc. But these to will fade away over time - pictures decay, people die. Eventually, the car will literally vanish both from the physical and mental planes. It is then that the car will be categorically nonexistent. I think if we take something closer to home, like a person, the message becomes even poignantly clearer, for in death lies the answer to your question of categorical nonexistence.

If B did not exist and then suddenly came into existence, what non-random thing explains the latter? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

You have a point but it doesn't help your case because it matters not how something, anything arose. What matters is, well, cateogrical nonexistence.

Maybe at some point everybody here was like Harry Potter is now? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Please read above.

then there is no difference between imagining and not imagining. — litewave

You're imagining a scenario where imagining and not being capable of imagining something are the same thing. That is impossible, just like a triangular circle. By imagining that situation you're proving me right.

Your hypothetical situation is:
1) I can imagine the concept
2) I can not imagine the concept
3) 1&2 do not contradict each other

Two conditions that we know for sure do contradict each other, but in the hypothetical situation do not.

Now let's see the triangular circle:
1) The shape is round, has no corners and all of it's points are the same distance from its centre.
2) The shape has three corners
3) 1&2 do not contradict each other

The same thing.

Your hypothetical situation is:
1) I can imagine the concept
2) I can not imagine the concept
3) 1&2 do not contradict each other — BlueBanana

But 1&2 contradict each other in any situation.

That's what makes the situation fully hypothetical. Yet you talked about the situation and described it and imagined it.

That's what makes the situation fully hypothetical. Yet you talked about the situation and described it and imagined it. — BlueBanana

That's what makes the situation impossible and therefore such a situation cannot exist. I just wrote a collection of words on the screen that refers to no situation.

No, they refer to an impossible situation, which is different from no situation. Since the situation was described the thought of it exists.

A logically impossible situation is not even a situation. It is nothing. Contradictory descriptions describe nothing.

A related inquiry:

Suppose in a few centuries no living person has ever encountered the Harry Potter stories. It's a thought experiment. All that remains of them is a dusty box with the (by then) old books, hidden away somewhere, all else long since having been recycled.
Can it then be said that Harry Potter still exists (as a fictional narrative), perhaps as a kind of extended memory found in that dusty box?
Or, can Harry Potter only "come back to life", as it were, once someone has read the old books?
Can one speak of any ontological status worth mentioning?

It is said that Zeno devised 40 thought experiments, paradoxes, though only 9 are known, and only second-hand. We might suppose they could still be uncovered in ancient texts of course, perhaps even Zeno's own words, however unlikely it seems by now.
What might be the ontological status of these alleged 31 thought experiments supposedly devised by Zeno?
After all, I just referred to them, hypothetically at least.

No, they describe a contradictory situation.

Suppose I have the thought that Earth might have another moon, call it "Luna2." If I determine that there is no celestial object that actually qualifies to be called a moon of Earth, I'll say, "Luna2 does not exist."

You will say that Luna2 does exist, as an idea. Okay, Luna2 is an idea. What sort of idea? Is Luna2 an idea of something? If so, what? — Srap Tasmaner

Here's a list:

1.) An idea: A as manifested in your mind.
2.) A physical embodiment of A outside of your mind.


You ask what if it is determined that there is no 2.).

Okay, let's delete 2.) and update the list.

Here is the updated list:

1.) An idea: A as manifested in your mind.


We still have A.

Suppose in a few centuries no living person has ever encountered the Harry Potter stories. It's a thought experiment. All that remains of them is a dusty box with the (by then) old books, hidden away somewhere, all else long since having been recycled.
Can it then be said that Harry Potter still exists (as a fictional narrative), perhaps as a kind of extended memory found in that dusty box?
Or, can Harry Potter only "come back to life", as it were, once someone has read the old books?
Can one speak of any ontological status worth mentioning?

It is said that Zeno devised 40 thought experiments, paradoxes, though only 9 are known, and only second-hand. We might suppose they could still be uncovered in ancient texts of course, perhaps even Zeno's own words, however unlikely it seems by now.
What might be the ontological status of these alleged 31 thought experiments supposedly devised by Zeno?
After all, I just referred to them, hypothetically at least. — jorndoe

Harry potter would exist out of the context in which we now know Harry Potter. Either:

1.) The present context would be reconstructed enough that Harry Potter would be manifested the same as today. That would probably take quite an archaeological feat.

2.) Harry Potter is incorporated/assimilated into a different context.


I think you already answered your second question. They would be things that allegedly / hypothetically exist.

Here's a list:

1.) An idea: A as manifested in your mind.
2.) A physical embodiment of A outside of your mind.


You ask what if it is determined that there is no 2.).

Okay, let's delete 2.) and update the list.

Here is the updated list:

1.) An idea: A as manifested in your mind.


We still have A. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Fine. It's an idea. What is it an idea of?

The way I see it is a particular form of a thing acquires an identity over and above that given by its composition. For example, take metal, plastic, rubber and glass and make a car. These materials have their own existence and yet, they interact to create a car whose identity as a vehicle is something more. Further interaction with its owner and his/her family will add to this identity. However, a time will come when it will be discarded, dismantled into its composite parts. We could say that it has simply changed form but it has lost the identity it acquired over its lifetime as a car. We could then say it changed its form into, hopefully, fond memories, pictures, etc. But these to will fade away over time - pictures decay, people die. Eventually, the car will literally vanish both from the physical and mental planes. It is then that the car will be categorically nonexistent. I think if we take something closer to home, like a person, the message becomes even poignantly clearer, for in death lies the answer to your question of categorical nonexistence... — TheMadFool

Someone recently told me how often the material that a human is composed of is replaced. If I recall correctly, he said every 13 years. So a human alive today is not composed of the same matter he/she was composed of 13 years ago.

I think that the car is the same. The car preceeds any material that makes it tangible. Even if the car lost all physical manifestation and ended up absent from all other forms such as photographs, the car could be physically reconstituted at a later time.

If the latter is false and the car can never again appear in any form, what was the process that took it completely out of existence? How does it work?

You have a point but it doesn't help your case because it matters not how something, anything arose. What matters is, well, cateogrical nonexistence... — TheMadFool

But if something spontaneously comes into existence rather than simply moving from one form of existence to another, then that means that it previously was categorically non-existent.

Please read above. — TheMadFool

The process through which something is taken out of existence is missing.

the car could be physically reconstituted at a later time — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I think we're veering towards the concept of identity here. To my knowledge the issue remains unresolved in philosophy. All that means, to me, is that identity is a nebulous idea - look up Ship of Theseus.

It seems you think that the identity of an object is indestructible throughout the process of change from one form to another.

My answer to that is:

Take a human being Mr. X. You will agree that there's a difference between the living Mr. X and an urn containing his ashes. I pin my argument on this difference - something has become nonexistent during the transformation from Mr. X to the pile of ash. This something may persist in memories, books, photos, videos, audio, etc. However, these too will fade and vanish. Then we have the categorical nonexistence you're looking for.

The key factors in your mind-game are the two realms of existence - the mental and physical. In my example above I've shown you an entity, a car that straddles both realms. It's a mental-physical entity. Well, now that I think of it, ALL objects are like that. In effect, identity necessarily requires aspects of both realms of existence - the physical AND the psychical. Losing the physical and/or the psychical part entails loss of identity i.e. the object becomes nonexistent. It's like the set of integers - made of positive numbers AND negative numbers. If you remove either/both, the concept/identity of integer becomes nonexistent.

So, you may reconstitute the car from its parts but that's just the physical aspect of identity. You can't restore the psychical component of the car's identity because people forget, people die. Isn't this categorical nonexistence?

But if something spontaneously comes into existence rather than simply moving from one form of existence to another, then that means that it previously was categorically non-existent. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I think you're begging the question, as in you're already assuming categorical nonexistence is impossible.

You can use the same rationale I provided above that the car was categorically nonexistent before it was made. It lacks the physical component of identity, existing only in the mental realm.

I think we're veering towards the concept of identity here. To my knowledge the issue remains unresolved in philosophy. All that means, to me, is that identity is a nebulous idea - look up Ship of Theseus.

It seems you think that the identity of an object is indestructible throughout the process of change from one form to another.

My answer to that is:

Take a human being Mr. X. You will agree that there's a difference between the living Mr. X and an urn containing his ashes. I pin my argument on this difference - something has become nonexistent during the transformation from Mr. X to the pile of ash. This something may persist in memories, books, photos, videos, audio, etc. However, these too will fade and vanish. Then we have the categorical nonexistence you're looking for.

The key factors in your mind-game are the two realms of existence - the mental and physical. In my example above I've shown you an entity, a car that straddles both realms. It's a mental-physical entity. Well, now that I think of it, ALL objects are like that. In effect, identity necessarily requires aspects of both realms of existence - the physical AND the psychical. Losing the physical and/or the psychical part entails loss of identity i.e. the object becomes nonexistent. It's like the set of integers - made of positive numbers AND negative numbers. If you remove either/both, the concept/identity of integer becomes nonexistent.

So, you may reconstitute the car from its parts but that's just the physical aspect of identity. You can't restore the psychical component of the car's identity because people forget, people die. Isn't this categorical nonexistence?

But if something spontaneously comes into existence rather than simply moving from one form of existence to another, then that means that it previously was categorically non-existent.
— WISDOMfromPO-MO

I think you're begging the question, as in you're already assuming categorical nonexistence is impossible.

You can use the same rationale I provided above that the car was categorically nonexistent before it was made. It lacks the physical component of identity, existing only in the mental realm. — TheMadFool

If something is categorically non-existent there are no traces of it.

That's not the same thing as saying humans do not have the tools to find traces or the intelligence to connect traces and recognize the being that they compose. To say the latter would be extreme anthropocentrism.

All of this even applies to identities. Just because humans do not have any further knowledge of an identity, such as Harry Potter, does not mean that traces of it do not exist.

— TheMadFool

The Empire State Building could be a trace of something and humans lack the perspective to see the whole being that it partially constitutes.

99.9999999999999999999999999999% of that trace could disappear. There could be only one electron left. But we would still have one small trace of the Empire State Building left--a trace of a trace. Just because humans do not have the perspective to see that that electron is part of the Empire State Building does not mean that the Empire State Building categorically does not exist. Just because humans have to have the presence of an identity to recognize a being does not mean that if only one electron is left and the identity has disappeared that the being is categorically non-existent.

This is starting to sound like holons--everything is simultaneously a whole and a part of another hole.

Fine. It's an idea. What is it an idea of? — Srap Tasmaner

Another moon of the Earth named Luna2.

You know that's not going to work, don't you? Can Luna2 be the idea of Luna2? That way, infinite regress lies...

You know that's not going to work, don't you? Can Luna2 be the idea of Luna2? That way, infinite regress lies... — Srap Tasmaner

It is an idea, I, of a being, B, that is, M, another moon of the Earth, and has the name, N, Luna2.

It is conceivable to see the second one, B, as a constant and all of the others as variables. It is conceivable being able to modify or eliminate some or all of the variables without removing the existence of B. I could be changed to P, physical object, and B would still exist. M could be changed to D, dust after a collision with an asteroid, and B would still exist. And so on.

Something way back in my memory tells me what you're talking about here as B is what Aristotle called substance, that of which properties are predicated.

The question here is whether your particular take on such a metaphysics is reasonable.

You say the Empire State Building exists as an idea and then exists as building. I suppose when it's torn down, it goes back to existing as an idea. It seems perfectly clear to me that there are ideas of the building existing before, during, after the Empire State Building's existence as a building. None of them are the Empire State Building itself, and it is not any of them.

If it really bothers you that the Empire State Building can come into and go out of existence, then you should look at that. What does it mean to say that? We're not talking about miracles. All we really have here is the rearrangement of stuff that already exists, on the one hand, and how we talk about it, on the other.

Do you know the sorites paradox? the problem of the heap? You've got a pile of sand. Take away a grain, still a pile of sand. Take away another, or another ten, or another hundred, and it's still a pile of sand. But how far can that go? When you get down to a hundred grains, is it still a pile of sand? Maybe. Down to ten? Doesn't seem like a pile, maybe a very small pile. Three? At what point did it stop being a pile? Was there a number? Is it plausible that there's a cutoff -- 256 is a pile, but 255 isn't?

Do you see here a pile of sand springing into existence and disappearing? Or the pile of sand being first a physical thing and then an idea as we take away grains? What idea? How many grains of sand in the idea of a pile?

You exist as a human now, not intelligent now, not a human being now. Being a BEING requires etymology of the word existence, and existence is not a predicate, it must be proven. 4 requirement must occur to prove intelligent existence;
1 a fact of living
2 a fact of objective reality
3 a state of living
4 a state of objective reality.
all 4 must exist to be an intelligent being existing in the universe, in time, the continuum.
If you exist in Einstein Relative reality you are not an intelligent being, its precluded by objective reality being required. TIME MAN.

We've had the introduction and the rising action.

Now for the climax--in a new thread.

See this thread.