There is something special about it. “Something exists” is about our world. It is not necessarily true, because in principle it is possible than in the future it stops being true, that in the future everything ceases to exist. But now it is true.

Whereas “all white unicorns are white” is logically necessary, is true by definition but it doesn’t say anything about our world. We can also say “if there is nothing then there is nothing”, yes sure, awesome, but that doesn’t deal with our world. “Something exists” is a true fact about our world, now, and that’s important. — leo

I do agree that functionally "Something exists" is a useful realization. But when we don't consider it's utility for us and just consider whether being mistaken about it when you accept it is somehow more logically impossible than with any other logical necessity, we are wrong.

"This allows the creation of particle-antiparticle pairs of virtual particles." — ovdtogt

Yes -1 + 1 = 0, but -1 * 1 = -1 for instance, why do you assume that a sum of energies equal to zero — leo

What makes you assume, multiplying a hole with a mound is in any way logical?

My understanding of quantum physics is almost zero. But I can understand the concept of an electron and a positon jumping simultaneously out of a void and disappearing back into a void.
That is as far as my knowledge goes I am afraid.

So it is impossible that you have just evaluated all of your experiences, thoughts, definitions of certainty and existence and proofs and everything else incorrectly and that you are just thinking things that don't represent anything?

btw I don't think you are thinking about nothing since I do trust in logic, but I just don't think we can absolutely prove anything. — Qmeri

I agree that we can’t absolutely prove anything - but I can be certain about some things. Not because of experiences, thoughts, definitions, etc, but despite the uncertainty of all of these. Even if I can trust nothing at all, I can trust that something exists, and that something is aware of existence.

I agree that we can’t absolutely prove anything — Possibility

Experience tell us some beliefs are more likely to be true than their counter beliefs. But many we just take on authority.

I do agree that functionally "Something exists" is a useful realization. But when we don't consider it's utility for us and just consider whether being mistaken about it when you accept it is somehow more logically impossible than with any other logical necessity, we are wrong. — Qmeri

But how could we be mistaken about it? Even if we believe we are mistaken about it, that very belief implies “something exists”. So we could be mistaken about the belief that “believing something implies something exists”? But if we’re mistaken about that one too then something exists. What if we’re mistaken about “if we’re mistaken about that one too then something exists”? But then something still exists. And so on and so forth.

I’m all for leaving open the possibility that we may be wrong about such and such thing, because we might discover something in the future that we hadn’t realized, however in this case that isn’t possible. If we think, something exists. If we make an assertion, something exists. If we see anything, something exists. If we refuse logic, something exists. If we don’t use language and close our eyes, something still exists. At that point keeping saying “maybe nothing exists” is not an extreme form of open-mindedness, it is a willful denial of existence, of truth, it is the will to prevent the construction of anything, in some way it is the will to destroy existence itself.

That is why I will not accept the possibility that “maybe nothing exists”. No. Something exists. It may not be the case in the future, but now it is the case. You or others can deny it all you want, I won’t force you to change your mind if your goal is to make people believe that truth cannot be known, but you will not change mine.

What makes you assume, multiplying a hole with a mound is in any way logical?

My understanding of quantum physics is almost zero. But I can understand the concept of an electron and a positon jumping simultaneously out of a void and disappearing back into a void.
That is as far as my knowledge goes I am afraid. — ovdtogt

What makes you assume it is logical to say “zero total energy” implies nothingness? The way energy is defined, it can be zero even when plenty of things exist. I was attempting to show you that.

The electron and positron are not jumping out of a void. What seems to be a void is not a void. If you go in interstellar space, there is still the light and gravity of distant stars passing through. If you go in intergalactic space, there is still the light and gravity of distant galaxies passing through. Even if you are far enough from them that you don’t see any with the naked eye, they are still passing through, and you can detect that with the help of some instruments. What they call a void is not a void, that’s a misnomer. The electron and positron do not jump out nothingness. The space between galaxies is not nothingness, so the space in the solar system or in a laboratory here on Earth is decidedly not nothingness, even if they remove all molecules from some box there is still radiation and gravity coming from all around.

After millennia of philosophy it seems we have only arrived at one absolute truth: — leo

Not true. We have arrived at an infinite number of absolute truths. Some examples: No bachelor is married, No circle is a square, etc

I believe "something exists" is one of these trivial truths. Trivial because they're true by definition

Not true. We have arrived at an infinite number of absolute truths. Some examples: No bachelor is married, No circle is a square, etc

I believe "something exists" is one of these trivial truths. Trivial because they're true by definition — khaled

As I said on the last page, “something exists” isn’t true by definition, because it is possible that in the future everything ceases to exist and then “something exists” will stop being true. But for now it is true. It is not defined to be true.

Now how about “at least two things exist”? It may not be true in the future, but can you show how it might be false now?

So the second absolute truth is that there cannot be only a single thing that exists in this reality now — leo

I think you're hinting at some Daoist principles here. It is a common idea in Daoism that for something to be it must have an opposite. When you conceive of good you necessarily conceive of bad. That's because daoists made the observation that every concept that we can possibly come up with defines itself against other concepts. Good is defined by evil, Pleasure is defined by pain, etc. This sort of "co-operative defining" is what you're describing I think.

That’s one way to see it. I wouldn’t say good is defined against evil, I wouldn’t say that we couldn’t feel happiness if we couldn’t feel suffering. But indeed there is some sort of duality in existence, good/evil, happiness/suffering, love/hate, unity/division, ..., this isn’t to say that one needs the other to exist, but for now that duality exists.

I noticed this duality, and then my train of thought was, could it be possible that this duality is an illusion and that deep down there is fundamental unity? But I came to the conclusion that the duality is fundamental (in this existence now), that it is impossible to see unity as the basis of it all, which is what I explained in the OP. And I feel it is an important conclusion.

It would be nice to formulate a simple proof, that there is not fundamental unity at the basis of this existence (be it a single force, a single consciousness, a single being, a single particle, ...), but instead that there are at least two things at the root of it all. I was hoping that some of you would help me formulate that proof, but up to now this discussion hasn’t really progressed in that direction.

this isn’t to say that one needs the other to exist — leo

I think they do

It would be nice to formulate a simple proof, that there is not fundamental unity at the basis of this existence (be it a single force, a single consciousness, a single being, a single particle, ...), but instead that there are at least two things at the root of it all. I was hoping that some of you would help me formulate that proof, but up to now this discussion hasn’t really progressed in that direction. — leo

I think it's simple
1- For every concept x there is a concept representing not x (!x)
2- So any "unity" we come up with and call x, there must also be !x
3- So for every "unity" we come up with there is a complementary concept


So as long as unity is a concept we can grasp it won't be one concept

We might remove the notion of "thing" altogether, and start with the assumption of existence. Then we say 'there is existence', and this is not to predicate existence of some thing, or something, it makes existence the thing, as the subject.

So we can avoid this necessary conclusion of dualism by starting from a slightly different perspective, saying there is existence, making existence a noun, the thing to be analyzed, instead of saying something exists, making existence a predicate. This allows us to defer the question of what is a "thing", until we have first determined what it means to exist. — Metaphysician Undercover

OK I’m on board with that, let’s say “there is existence” instead of “something exists”.

Now the purpose of this thread is to show that in order to account for this current existence, there is necessarily a duality in it. This isn’t to say that there cannot be existence without a duality, but that in this existence there is a duality, that it is impossible that it is all united as one, impossible that there is no fundamental separation in it.

This is the problem I refer to, in distinguishing a multitude of things from one single thing. If things are isolated from one another, then we must assume some sort of substance which isolates them.
In each case there must be something real which separates the thing, or else they are not really separate things. — Metaphysician Undercover

OK I get your point, yes indeed they wouldn’t be separated if there was nothing separating them. Important observation.

We might start with "existence in the now", as you say, and this is what I request above, to consider "existence" itself without reference to things. The problem here is that we cannot dismiss induction, as you request. If we are to proceed with any sound premises we must derive the premises from experience. We cannot make up imaginary assumptions of what "existence in the now" is, which are not consistent with our experience, so we must produce premises derived from induction, in order to have sound principles. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes indeed, we cannot completely dismiss induction, we simply have to recognize that induction doesn’t necessarily yield conclusions of universal validity, but that it may help us get closer to such conclusions, and even if we have no proof of that we can keep faith in it and see where it leads, and we can see that it is a tool that helps us and that has helped us.

What we can say about "existence in the now", is that things are changing, and we conclude that time is passing. To deny this would be to accept an unsound principle. Therefore, I read your second paragraph above, like this. A thing which is composed of parts necessarily is influenced by something else. That "something else", is whatever provides the separation between the parts, such that they can be called individual parts. So what we observe, as time passes, is that a thing's parts are always being influenced by something else, something other than the thing itself which is making the parts into a whole. The "something else" is making the parts into distinct individuals. And, unless there is an absolutely perfect balance between the force of the thing which makes the parts into a whole, and the force of the other thing which makes the parts into separate individuals, we cannot say that this thing is unchanging.

Furthermore, we can refer to observation, and induction, to say that such an absolutely perfect balance does not exist. This is because we have no examples of a thing that is composed of parts which remains unchanging. So this idea, of a thing composed of parts which is unchanging, is an ideal, an absolute which represents nothing real. If we adopt it as a principle because it might be useful for comparison (as the basis for a scale or something), we must remember, and be careful not to accept it as a principle of what "existence in the now" means. This unchanging thing is an abstraction, removed from "the now"; the principles of "the now" we only know through induction. — Metaphysician Undercover

OK, yes indeed in order for there to be a thing made of parts there needs to be some way to distinguish those parts, but if that thing never changed then we would never distinguish those parts. So a thing made of parts cannot remain unchanging forever. Thank you for making me realize that, that’s really important to see.

And indeed we can say that “there is existence” and that “existence changes”. However this doesn’t yet imply that existence is made of parts, because we haven’t proven that one thing cannot change. A thing made of parts necessarily changes eventually, but a thing not made of parts may change too.

And so what I want to prove, or rather what I believe can be proven, is that this existence is not one, that it is made of parts. And I believe you have brought an important piece of the puzzle by showing that a thing made of parts cannot remain unchanging forever, I believe that will be a key part of the proof.

And in order to prove that this existence is not one, that it is made of parts, I believe we can prove it by contradiction. That if we assume that existence is one thing that changes, we will be led to a contradiction.

Within what we experience, within what we see, we see a multiplicity of things, for instance the sky is separated from the ground, the day is separated from the night. I don’t think the proof is as simple as saying that we couldn’t distinguish anything from anything else if there was only one thing that changes. Or is it? If there was only one thing that changes, everything would be necessarily uniform, would change while remaining uniform everywhere, such as all white and then all black and then all orange?

But we might still say that this is an illusion, that what we perceive to be separate parts are in fact the one existence perceived at different times. But if there is such a thing as illusion and reality, then there is a duality, how existence really is and how it appears. And so no matter what we’re led to the conclusion that this existence is made of parts, that it cannot be one single thing changing.

Do you agree? Do you see holes in that proof?

I think it's simple
1- For every concept x there is a concept representing not x (!x)
2- So any "unity" we come up with and call x, there must also be !x
3- So for every "unity" we come up with there is a complementary concept — khaled

Indeed that might work too. I was going to say that the concept “orange” doesn’t have an opposite, but actually everything that is not orange can be seen as “not orange”. And if we say that opposites are an illusion, if there is “illusion” then there also is “not illusion”, namely reality. So no matter what this existence is made of parts, is not one single thing that changes.

However I believe that there could be happiness without suffering, it’s simply that “happiness” would be contrasted with “everything that isn’t happiness” rather than with suffering, so for instance it would be contrasted with colors and with other perceptions that aren’t inherently suffering. That’s why I believe there can be good without evil, love without hate.

So it seems we have already reached three truths about this existence (they may not remain true forever but for now they are true):

1. There is existence
2. Existence changes
3. Existence is not one thing, it is made of parts

What more can we find?

The principle, "existence could not come from nothing", does not mean that existence was always there. When we say that something came from something else, we mean that the something else is other than the named thing. So what is implied is that existence came from something other than existence. This principle, that "existence could not come from nothing", again, is an inductive principle. it is derived from our understanding of how things come into existence through change. — Metaphysician Undercover

But something else than existence is non-existence, and what is non-existence if not nothingness? So if existence didn’t arise spontaneously, it must have been always there.

What more can we find? — leo

We find that only 1.) is true.

If 2.) is true, then one of the possible changes for existence is its negation. The negation of existence is, there isn’t existence, a contradiction.

If 3.) is true, existence requires the existence of its parts, or, existence requires existence, an absurdity.

Existence is nothing but a necessary condition for the possibility of human phenomenal experience. Nothing more, nothing less. Aristotle and Kant both called it, and others like it, a “category”. So they've been around a long time, and they’ve yet to be shown as false, illogical or un-necessary, no matter how hard we try to get rid of them.

They’re also entirely speculative, so.......there ya go.

If 2.) is true, then one of the possible changes for existence is its negation. The negation of existence is, there isn’t existence, a contradiction. — Mww

As I said, they are true now but they may not be true in the future, I didn’t claim that they would be true forever, so there is no contradiction. You cannot even prove that 1.) will be true forever.

If 3.) is true, existence requires the existence of its parts, or, existence requires existence, an absurdity. — Mww

To say that existence is currently made of parts is not to say that there cannot be existence without parts, so I don’t see an absurdity. Care to clarify?

Existence is nothing but a necessary condition for the possibility of human phenomenal experience. Nothing more, nothing less. — Mww

That’s quite reductive, how are you going to prove that statement? Or are you merely stating your personal definition of existence and pretending that it’s more than a definition? It could also be said to be a necessary condition for any experience, that doesn’t imply that existence reduces to a necessary condition, it is more than that, the experience that you’re presumably having now is part of existence too.

Existence is nothing but a necessary condition for the possibility of human phenomenal experience. Nothing more, nothing less. — Mww

Even if it is true that it is a necessary condition for the possibility of experience (transcendental argument) it doesn't follow that it is "nothing more" than that. What are the ramifications you suppose this has?

ie. Yes...

It could also be said to be a necessary condition for any experience, that doesn’t imply that existence reduces to a necessary condition, it is more than that, the experience that you’re presumably having now is part of existence too. — leo

That’s quite reductive, how are you going to prove that statement? — leo

This isn’t mathematics; there are no empirical proofs in speculative metaphysics. The “necessary condition for the possibility of human phenomenal experience” falls out logically from the theoretical premises.

Different people, different theories, different understandings.

So are you saying that your experiences are not part of existence, because supposedly existence is “nothing more” than a necessary condition?

Also can you point out the theoretical premises I used that lead to the three truths I mentioned? From my point of view I made no assumption because all assumptions lead to these truths, these truths fall out logically, for instance if you assume they aren’t true now you reach a contradiction.

It seems to me that in order to deny these truths one has to deny logic itself, but then if we start denying logic hell ensues.

Now the purpose of this thread is to show that in order to account for this current existence, there is necessarily a duality in it. This isn’t to say that there cannot be existence without a duality, but that in this existence there is a duality, that it is impossible that it is all united as one, impossible that there is no fundamental separation in it. — leo

Well, I think the next move, after assuming "there is existence" would be to ask how we know there is existence. This will give us some idea of what is meant here by "existence". I think that we can go two ways here. We can refer to our senses, outside ourselves, and say that we sense things moving all around us, and this confirms "existence", or we can turn to the inside, like Descartes, looking at the passage of thoughts in the mind, and say that this confirms "existence".

Notice that in each case there is some sort of movement or change involved in the characteristics of "the thing" which demonstrates existence to us. This implies the temporal nature of existence. However, when we recognize that these two ways of apprehending 'existence" are quite distinct, we find a need for a spatial boundary between the inside and the outside, and it is this understanding of the spatial nature of existence which produces the need for a duality. Perhaps if we adhere to simple temporal terms there will be no need to assume a duality.

Yes indeed, we cannot completely dismiss induction, we simply have to recognize that induction doesn’t necessarily yield conclusions of universal validity, but that it may help us get closer to such conclusions, and even if we have no proof of that we can keep faith in it and see where it leads, and we can see that it is a tool that helps us and that has helped us. — leo

Yes, I think this is a good point. Induction gives us "universality" in a restricted sense. It is restricted by our perspective. We want a true "universal validity", but we can only go so far as our limited capacities will allow us. So we produce generalities, universalities, but we have to guard ourselves against the inclination to conclude that they have true universal validity. On the other hand though, we need to respect the fact that we have nothing but our own experiences with which to judge any conclusions about "existence", so we must give some credence to these generalizations if we even want to start to understand. Remember, you are starting with "existence" which is the most general, so to completely exclude generalizations as unreliable, would be to exclude your own premise.

And indeed we can say that “there is existence” and that “existence changes”. However this doesn’t yet imply that existence is made of parts, because we haven’t proven that one thing cannot change. A thing made of parts necessarily changes eventually, but a thing not made of parts may change too. — leo

This is another principle I find questionable. How could a thing which is not made of parts, change? For a thing to change, at least one part must become something other than it was. How could this happen if the thing had no parts?

I'm trying to make some general categories by which we can classify things, and this is a distinction between spatial and temporal properties of a thing. Are parts necessarily defined spatially? Is the separation between one part and another, necessarily a spatial separation? Can we consider a temporal separation between parts?

Suppose a changing thing at one time fits one description, and at a later time fits another description. We say that it is throughout the entire time, always the same thing, but it is undergoing some changes. Now we have a period of time in which the thing is existing, and at each moment in that time period, it has a different description. Can we say that at each moment, what is described, is a part of "the object", which exists as the complete temporal extension? If so, then what constitutes the separation between these parts, allowing them to be distinct parts? Don't we generally conceive of such a temporal extension as a continuity of the object, without such separations? However, without such separations within the temporal extension of the object, it appears like change to the object would be impossible. Therefore we must conclude that there is separation between the temporal parts of the object.

And so what I want to prove, or rather what I believe can be proven, is that this existence is not one, that it is made of parts. And I believe you have brought an important piece of the puzzle by showing that a thing made of parts cannot remain unchanging forever, I believe that will be a key part of the proof. — leo

Actually, I think we can prove that both aspects of existence, spatial and temporal, are composed of parts. In the spatial sense, we have the separation which arises from the two ways of apprehending existence, from the inside and from the outside. This produces a spatially defined boundary between the inside of the object and the outside of the object. This implies that the "existence" being described here, has parts. Also, as I just described above the temporal aspect of the object must also consist of parts, with a separation between these parts. Therefore existence, in both its temporal aspect and spatial aspect, is composed of parts.

But we might still say that this is an illusion, that what we perceive to be separate parts are in fact the one existence perceived at different times. — leo

This is why we need to address the temporal extension of existence as well as the spatial extension of existence, in order to soundly prove that existence is composed of parts. If temporal extension is a continuity, then there is no division between existence at one moment and the next, and it might be argued that all of existence is just "one", perceived from different perspectives. But there is an easier way to refute this claim. That claim requires the "perspective" to be something separate from the existence being observed, and this necessitates a separation anyway. So, once we recognize the reality of the fact that existence must be composed of parts, we can move to understand how temporal extension could be composed of parts.

But something else than existence is non-existence, and what is non-existence if not nothingness? So if existence didn’t arise spontaneously, it must have been always there. — leo

What has happened, is that we have taken "existence" as a noun, a thing, in an attempt to describe that thing, what it means to exist. This means that we separate it from other things. So we cannot say that non-existence is nothing, because by distinguishing existence from other things we have allowed that non-existence is something..

it doesn't follow that it is "nothing more" than that. — Pantagruel

Actually, in accordance with the transcendental argument, it does follow necessarily. Existence, the pure concept of understanding, permits nothing else than a necessary condition. The pure intuitions space and time are the necessary conditions for phenomena; the pure conceptions of the categories are the necessary conditions for phenomenal experience. Neither phenomena not the categories are used in pure thought, such as the logical laws, geometric figures, transcendent notions......and of course, the dreaded, misbegotten noumena.

Existence, the pure concept of understanding, permits nothing else than a necessary condition. — Mww

I don't understand your explication. Existence is minimally presupposed for experience to be the case. What more can be derived (needs to be derived) than that? By saying existence is "nothing more than this" you are making existence conditional upon what is in fact, conditional upon it (experience).

i.e. Existence is a condition of experience, but experience is not a limitation of existence

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
Thus, Kant can claim that only the form of experience is mind-dependent, not its matter; the matter of experience depends upon a source outside of the mind.[12]

So are you saying that your experiences are not part of existence — leo

In effect, yes. My experiences are not things that exist, they are merely the termination of a rational process. Physical things in space and time are part of natural reality; real things cannot be part of that which is merely a pure conception, or, the schemata of a pure conception.

“....Experience is an empirical cognition; that is to say, a cognition which determines an object by means of perceptions...”

I think something is lost by saying experience exists. The term is then required to be far to broad to really mean anything.

[

Existence is minimally presupposed for experience to be the case. What more can be derived (needs to be derived) than that? — Pantagruel

Yes, that’s why it and the other categories is/are called a necessary condition(s). All that needs to be derived from that regulative principle, is the logical consistency for it. And the more fundamental the premise, the easier the logical consistency, re: for that which does not exist, experience of it is impossible. Another one is, for that which is not possible, experience of it is impossible. For that which is a cause, some effect must be dependent on it. For that which is a quantity, there is also a boundary.

Reason seeks the unconditioned, the bottom line. In the human cognitive system, the bottom line is the LNC. In any mental event where contradiction arises, something is wrong in the construction of the event. All the categories do is provide the ground under which the LNC becomes manifest, and THAT is the prime determinant of our kind of knowledge.

Is this your own position? I thought you were taking a Kantian approach based on your use of the transcendental argument.

What is LNC?

Law of Non-contradiction.

I always argue from the German Enlightenment tradition, which boils down, for all epistemological or moral intents and purposes, to Kantian Transcendental philosophy. What can I say....I’m attracted to paradigm shifts in any form. SR, GR, QM....all fascinating stuff. That, and maybe I just don’t know any better. (Sigh)

I do argue from what has become known as the transcendental argument, although Kant never called it that, but rather, justified his philosophies......

“.....by showing that all the objections urged against them may be silenced for ever by the Socratic method, that is to say, by proving the ignorance of the objector....”

......them being metaphysical disputes involving reason and knowledge, and ignorance standing for the improper use of the former to arrive at the impropriety of the latter. The Socratic method is dialectical, in which some arbitrary something is proven beyond doubt, in this case the logically irreducible truth of a priori synthetic propositions in mathematics, and adapting the same methodology which permits that logically irrefutable proof to a theory supporting something else, re: the limits of reason itself.

Coincidentally enough, one of the arguments which follow from all that, is (I think MetaphysicianUncover covered (?!?!) nicely).....existence (and all conceptions as categories) has no business being the predicate in a logical proposition, which is the empirical way we talk about stuff, nor do the conceptions as categories have any direct part in our thoughts, which is the rational way we talk to ourselves about stuff.

It’s quite simple really. If I say, “to be an object is to exist”, I haven’t added anything in the predicate “exists” that isn’t already given by the subject. The subject gives the predicate simply because I’ve already cognized “object” in order to use it as the subject of what I’m talking about. If objects didn’t exist, my proposition is unintelligible.

And the beat goes on......

Ok. I just don't see how any of this establishes in any way that experience 'doesn't exist' or that existence is somehow fully qualified (limited) by experience.

It only matters when one needs to distinguish between what it means for Neptune to exist, and what it means for feelings to exist. The two are so completely different as to require the meaning of existence to be just as different. If he doesn’t make allowances, he is left with one conception authorizing two completely different things in the same way.

If you don’t have any trouble with it.....ok by me.

In effect, yes. My experiences are not things that exist, they are merely the termination of a rational process. — Mww

I can understand why you would say that if you assume materialism right from the start, namely that your experiences are a manifestation of an underlying process occurring in a brain. Or even if you don’t assume the existence of a brain, you’re still assuming the existence of a rational process as being prior to experiences. But we don’t have to assume that, for instance solipsists and idealists don’t assume that.

However regardless of whether you assume materialism or solipsism or idealism or whatever, you do have experiences, which you may call perceptions or feelings or thoughts, they exist no matter what, these experiences are the source of knowledge, rather than things you may imagine to exist beyond. We can assume that these experiences stem from an underlying reality, but we don’t yet have certain knowledge about that underlying reality (solipsists still have to be disproven), whereas there are things we can certainly say about experiences, such as they exist, they change, and they are made of parts.

Saying that experiences such as feelings do not exist seems to me to be the start of a dangerous slippery slope. One doesn’t have to assume that feelings exist, experiencing them is the proof they exist. Assuming that they don’t exist is what is uncorroborated.

It only matters when one needs to distinguish between what it means for Neptune to exist, and what it means for feelings to exist. The two are so completely different as to require the meaning of existence to be just as different. If he doesn’t make allowances, he is left with one conception authorizing two completely different things in the same way. — Mww

Why would it be an issue to see experiences we call ‘love’ or ‘thought’ or ‘Neptune’ as all belonging to existence? We already separate them by giving them a different name. The issue would rather lie in assuming arbitrarily that they are so different that we won’t ever find any connection between them.