It does when I think on it in a universal sense -- it's not like I know which way is what. That's sort of Kant's point: Keep on arguing which way you want, it'll be interesting, but it won't effect scientific knowledge and you'll never know which is what.

If Kant thought it worthy addressing philosophically then I have a hard time arguing determinism isn't even plausible in the manner you described.

Cool.

I wonder if someone who doesn't exist at all can question his own existence or non-existence?

I am not, therefore I don't think.

What difference would it make if I had not existed? To me, nothing; to others, a lot.

Any single on of us? Likely not too much. Maybe some people would be less happy - heck maybe they'd be happier, it's difficult to say.

I'd miss out on everything quite literally. But the universe does not care one way or another.

Thank you for your concern and friends tell me that I need to find somewhere else to live. It is not easy to find accommodation though and I have moved many times, including during lockdown. I am in Harrow at the moment, and apart from the gang culture I prefer it to South London as I was living in Tooting previously.

I think that the problem is that there is so much drug culture and the people in the house are caught up in this. I used to be drawn to subcultures, especially in Camden Town but there are some very rough people and they can become so aggressive. They are not like Aldous Huxley or Allen Ginsberg, using psychedelics for writing. They often committing crime to pay for their addictions and desperation when withdrawing from substances. There also so much drug induced psychosis or dual disgnosis.

Yep... time to move, I'd say. Best of luck and take care.

No advice from me on where you should go. Given the thread, I will note that if one did not exist, housing choices would be much simpler. I can only hope that everyone who didn't get born is not living in a poorly managed city of the non-existent where there are neighborhoods of nobodies ranging from elite ocean-side gated neighborhoods to third-world shit holes.

Most cities have bad areas, and they shift over time, so what might have been a nice neighborhood is now gangland. In Minneapolis, the area where a lot of shootings, drug dealing, drug doing, street crime, thieving, etc. etc. is creeping closer to my neighborhood which has seen low rates of crime for a long time. "Uptown" used to be a slick shopping and sort of bohemian housing area, next to the high end housing surrounding the string of large lakes. The up-scale housing zones are doing fine, but Uptown has hit the skids, partly a victim of urban renewal projects which can be extremely disruptive. The bookstores and coffee shops are gone, along with the vintage movie theater, several nice restaurants, and so on.

Unfortunately, neighborhoods that are bohemian, charming, cheap, and colorful have a higher chance of sinking into a slum because it is cheaper and probably socially more tolerant than areas which have much more to lose financially.

I don't know where I would move if (when) my present neighborhood becomes unsafe. Given my age (79), I'd have to look for affordable senior housing.

I suppose there are ways to survey possibly renting in other parts of London without having to traipse through 100 miles of hallways, subway rides, and streets looking at different places? Websites? Free rental agencies? City agencies?

Moving is tough. It's hard work, it's stressful, it's risky (always a gamble on the next landlord, next neighborhood, etc.) and it can be expensive. On the other hand, living in a neighborhood becoming a high crime area is not great either.

I am not, therefore I don't think. — Jack Cummins

I've heard it said that I think, therefore I am not.

What difference would it make if I had not existed? To me, nothing; to others, a lot. — MoK

When the world seems to be full of butterfly effects, starting from our conception (or our parents meeting, or our grandparents meeting), it looks like we have a huge effect. Especially if we have children, who then have children.

But then again, if our parents wouldn't have met, they've likely had met others and have had a family and children with others.

And here comes the fact that this basically is a question of the selected point of view and what we consider a "similar" and a "different" reality from exactly this one.

When the world seems to be full of butterfly effects, starting from our conception (or our parents meeting, or our grandparents meeting), it looks like we have a huge effect. Especially if we have children, who then have children. — ssu

Yes. The butterfly effects are significant. If the sperm that made me had been just a little slower, then another sperm would have met the egg, so there would have been another person. The butterfly effects also play a significant role in the life of a person, especially when it comes to decisions, since our lives fork at the point of decision. A little like or dislike makes us decide otherwise, so it changes the life of the person and the lives of others as well. A person who comes up with an excellent idea may change the history of humankind.

This question can only be answered by an individual who has the perspective of knowing/experiencing two different time lines. Since noone has that perspective, the question cannot be answered with certainty. Though a very good approximation of the answer can be derived statistically, by calculating the difference between having 8.426 billion humans and 8.426 billion minus 1.

My own thought experiment is of thinking about how life would have been if I had not existed. It involves eliminating oneself from every aspect and incident in which one has ever partaken in. I wonder about how different life would have been without me for my family, friends and in all respects..How would life have been different for others without my existence in causal chains? — Jack Cummins

Modal contexts (what if's...) are stipulated. So the world could have be any way you might wish it to be. Your parents might never have met, or had a different child, or had no children at all... there is no one way things might have been; indeed there are innumerable (literally - without number) of ways the world might have been.

Which puts a lid on the speculation hereabouts. The world, without you, might have been different in any way you choose to consider.

‘Do you remember—’
‘I have a … very good memory, thank you.’
‘Do you ever wonder what life would have been like if you’d said yes?’ said Ridcully.
‘No.’
‘I suppose we’d have settled down, had children, grandchildren, that sort of thing …’
Granny shrugged. It was the sort of thing romantic idiots said. But there was something in the air tonight …
‘What about the fire?’ she said.
‘What fire?’
‘Swept through our house just after we were married. Killed us both.’
‘What fire? I don’t know anything about any fire?’
Granny turned around.
‘Of course not! It didn’t happen. But the point is, it might have happened. You can’t say “if this didn’t happen then that would have happened” because you don’t know everything that might have happened. You might think something’d be good, but for all you know it could have turned out horrible. You can’t say “If only I’d …” because you could be wishing for anything. The point is, you’ll never know. You’ve gone past. So there’s no use thinking about it. So I don’t.’ — Terry Pratchet

Pratchett, Terry. Lords And Ladies: (Discworld Novel 14) (Discworld series) (pp. 162-163).

I do see what you mean. It's all imaginary scenarios. It can be a futile way of going round in circles of 'what ifs and maybes'.

The only thing that I would say though, is that many people who I come across see philosophy in general in that way too. I am not just speaking about Ayer's point about metaphysics, but the many difficult questions, such as entire debates on the hard problem of consciousness, qualia, language and meaning. Many philosophy discussions could read like the Pratchett dialogue. It could be argued that the history of philosophy is about the various possible 'what ifs and maybes of life and the nature of 'reality'.

Yeah. The better philosophical conversations are the ones that pick out what is coherent from what isn't.

That's, on some accounts, what doing philosophy properly consists in. Not just any old thing.

So far as one's mental hygiene goes, it is worth noting that the various "what if" scenarios one might consider are made up. As such, you can always make them up differently. So for each possible world in which, say, folk are better of without you, there is an alternate possible world in which they are much worse off.

Take Granny's advice.

I do agree that picking out the coherent from the incoherent is an important marker. If anything, I regard my own thread as a rather strange one. I don't think that the content of the outpost is actually incoherent but it could be seen more as an issue for personal contemplation as opposed to actual philosophy analysis.

As for the 'made up' aspect, that is where fiction is so different from non fiction/philosophy. So, it is ironic that Pratchett includes a dialogue about fantasised possibilities. Fiction often draws people because it is about imaginary worlds.

I was actually surprised that this thread has got as much interaction as it has. It may be because it was provocative to some extent. There is also the question as to what is sense and nonsense in philosophy. I am not sure that in human thinking in the two first century that sense always has the upper hand. I am not just talking about in philosophy but in thought in general, especially with so much that is written online.

Once it may have been that academia was too obscure and missed common sense, but it may have gone in the opposite direction of incoherent nonsense being enjoyed.

PHaving grown up in Bedford, situated in between Cambridge and Oxford, I used to see libraries and bookshops filled with some of the authors who you have written about. When I first began thinking about philosophy questions, these did not make much sense to me (and they do so more now, as a result of some of your threads) However, some of the writings of the authors can seem so obscure, almost to the point of incoherence. I knew people who enrolled for philosophy courses, including someone, who started studying at Cambridge, and just couldn't get on with it at all.

So, as far as I see it, there is a a whole spectrum between academic obscurity and incoherent non sense. It may be a fine line, with what appeals to different people and what can be regarded as meaningful, worthwhile philosophy discussion.

My own thought experiment is of thinking about how life would have been if I had not existed. — Jack Cummins

There are no 'if's' but for planning scenarios; your 'if' is a fantasy world; actuality always trumps 'if', that is, you do exist.

Yes, cheers. It's a curious topic, and apparently topical...

If there were no 'if's would philosophy exist at all? I don't subscribe to an idea of 'self' independently of processes and we exist in a web of many actors. Each person is also acted upon and the reflective self as an existent may be the potential for action.

The aspect of this which I see as curious is each person's unique contribution to life and understanding. If some of those who are considered to be important thinkers, such as Plato, Kant, Marx, Einstein, Freud and Wittgenstein had not existed human thought and aspects of history may have been different. If Banno had not existed the discussion of twentieth century analytical philosophy tradition would not have unfolded on this forum in the way it has. Each person has some significant role in history and the development of ideas.

After writing the post above I am also aware that all the people I refer to are men. This shows the way in which the power structure is also significant in the unfolding of human thought. Gender and race are important factors in the roles people play in unique contributions and the development of individuality. The history of philosophy and history in general reflects the way in which each person's uniqueness is understood.

And yet each drop in the ocean (of spacetime) is just like every other one: "unique".

It does come down to how the unique and individual drops are seen, reduced or magnified, like grains of sand. A human being may be seen as insignificant or 'special' from variable perspective. I was once accused by a tutor of seeing myself as 'special'.

When this was queried and discussed, I tied to explain that I see everyone as special. Hierarchies of the 'special' may problematic, if it comes down to identifying some or others. It is like the problematic conundrum of Aldous Huxley's 'Animal Farm', in which 'Eveyone is special, but some more than others'. It shows how so much of this comes down to the social construction of values and significance.

The 'drops in the ocean' of understanding may be elevated or deflated, according to different systems of values and underlying philosophy of what matters. Here, the tension between those who endeavour towards universal or relative approaches to understanding meaning and significance diversify so much in underlying stances. The drops may be drips from failing taps or the build up of torrents of waves about to cascade the experience of the 'regular' aspects of experience.

Each person has some significant role in history and the development of ideas. — Jack Cummins

But there are those who live and die in anonymity and some live even less than a day, and I'd still be as committed to their significance. This just means we needn't search for what they've done to make themselves worthy, but that their worth is inherent, part of their being. That each person is infinitely valuable requires that you offer them room to live out their lives, not placing yourself in front of them and so it demands respect of others.

You can either accept what I'm saying just as part of your worldview or faith, or you can ask yourself the pragmatic question as to what would be gained to evaluate each of us as but an interesting conclusion to billions of years of evolution, no more or less significant than any other random assortment of stuff.

You make an important point because the anonymous experiences of dying, or life, may be equal, if not more than those held up as exemplified examples. Human worth is so complicated and it may be that there are no real contingencies in this.

It is questionable what 'out there' aspects of judgements exist. These may have been part of many religious and spiritual perspectives. How this relates to billions of years of evolution is another question entirely. Philosophy ideas, including spiritual paradigms, may seek to put this together systematically but so much remains open. In particular, the nature of randomness, or any underlying 'design', or purpose, involves differences in putting it all together in the larger picture. Each person may seek the larger picture, as a grasp for understanding, but there are so many open questions, especially regarding randomness vs design.

Yes. The butterfly effects are significant. If the sperm that made me had been just a little slower, then another sperm would have met the egg, so there would have been another person. The butterfly effects also play a significant role in the life of a person, especially when it comes to decisions, since our lives fork at the point of decision. A little like or dislike makes us decide otherwise, so it changes the life of the person and the lives of others as well. A person who comes up with an excellent idea may change the history of humankind. — MoK

But notice the other perspective here: people will likely have offspring. The majority will reproduce. The families aren't going to be as big as earlier.

Hence we don't have to assume an Einsteinian block universe where everything is basically predetermined to happen and stumble into philosophical question about free will.



It's all an issue about just what we define as similar? What if we would have born to our parents as childs of the opposing sex. Surely our experiences and our friends would be different. But what if the only thing would be that our hair would be a different color? Would that mean we would be totally different?

So the issue is here is what do we proclaim to be different and what similar to our existing reality.

It's a little off topic, but Stanislaw Lem, the Polish SciFi author, had a theory of alternate histories that dealt with events rather than individuals. Social events, such as the rise of the Nazi party would not be eliminated by simply requiring Hitler to die, let's say, when a teenager. Or not be born. The effect of a single life would be absorbed and discarded as time rolled on. A nullification of the butterfly effect.

I can't find a reference, but recall seeing this some time back.

A nullification of the butterfly effect. — jgill

Something along those lines was also at play in Asimov's Foundation series.

It strikes me as wishful thinking or a useful narrative device rather than a genuine possibility.

Gender and race are important factors in the roles people play in unique contributions and the development of individuality. — Jack Cummins

Which of course raises the issue of why they are important, and whether they ought be.