I contend existence is not entirely "based on observation". Existence exists, existence is, whether observed or not. In fact, sensory organs, or the ability to observe, could not be without previously existing phenomena to allow its development. Existence is, observation or not. Our observation simply affirms, or realizes, existence to a certain degree. — daniel j lavender
Existence (n.): Being; that which can be observed or is observed all around, that which can be interacted with in some way. That which allowed the ability to conceive such a concept of such a term. In context of this essay, all that exists, all or everything as a whole. — daniel j lavender
For example, if one could not see beyond a mountain range, such does not mean things do not exist beyond the mountain range, rather, it simply means one cannot see beyond the mountain range to affirm other things exist. This does not necessarily negate the existence of those other things, it simply illustrates limited observation and inability to view them. — daniel j lavender
I am asserting that existence exists independently of sensory perception. As stated above, sensory perception could not be, sensory perception could not develop without previously existing phenomena to allow such sensory development. This indicates existence sans observation or any other sensory faculty.
Simply put, existence is without observation; information wouldn't need to be attained for existence to be, or for existence to be infinite. But observation certainly allows affirmation of existence and allows subsequent discussion such as this. — daniel j lavender
I'm asserting that "observed reality" does have borders, it does have limits, hence our limited perspective. — daniel j lavender
But we are able to use cognitive processes to postulate beyond such limitations. "Observed reality" is in a way part of objective reality. Individuals form subjective views based on their personal observations; they are able to use cognitive processes to arrive at their own subjective views, which together create objectivity, or an aggregate of impersonal views further supporting the idea of non-limitation if only in that sense. Some view it one way, others view it another; it isn't limited to any single view. Illusory or concrete, both views concern subjectivity which combined flow into objectivity, or an aggregate of views which transcends personal bias reflecting existence's illimitability. Again, I am not claiming to know, I am asserting. — daniel j lavender
That seems to be in direct contradiction to the definition you provided in your OP — Echarmion
We need to decide whether or not existence is "that which can be or is observed" or "that which exists regardless of observation". We can't just equate objective reality with observed reality unless we have reasons to believe they are one and the same. Do we have such reasons? — Echarmion
How do you know things exist beyond the mountain range if you cannot see them? It seems to me you could only conclude that via induction from other observations. — Echarmion
Sure, something must exist independently of observation. And it could be infinite. But how do we know whether it actually is? — Echarmion
Borders are defined by the change from one attribute to another. What is beyond "observed reality" that serves as it's border? — Echarmion
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.