The 'question' is meaningless, because it already existentially requires human observers verbalising their projected experiences in order for it to arise.

THINGS are THINGED by THINGERS.

Covariant Quantum Fields exist by themselves (Rovelli).

I don't think so. Try this...
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1309/1309.0132.pdf

how about the question in my post? If no thing can exist by itself, then how can any set of things exist by itself? — tim wood

But a question: given that "something" cannot be - exist - by itself, then it seems to follow that in existing, necessarily something else exists. Is existence then founded in a reciprocity? Or is there one thing that in existing grounds the existence of all other things? And if one thing, does that exist by itself? (And if it does, how would thee or me know it?) Or does it require itself reciprocity? — tim wood

I'm not sure. I think I see that Objective Reality exists. That's a starting point. If something has actual existence, it exists within OR. We have no Objective evidence of what exists in OR, or of how many things exist in OR. So, in those absolute terms, little or nothing is clear. :sad:

We can also turn the above on its head, and say that, because OR is everything that exists, nothing separate or distinct from OR can exist. But it still doesn't seem to lead to anything useful. :meh:

TW> Or is there one thing that in existing grounds the existence of all other things?

Yes: OR.

TW> And if one thing, does that exist by itself?

Yes, it's OR.

TW> And if it does, how would thee or me know it?

By metaphysical reasoning only, I suspect. <reluctant shrug>

TW> Or does it require itself reciprocity?

I'm unsure how reciprocity is concerned here. Is there something - or some things - that can only exist if something else also exists? [ I exclude OR itself from this consideration, to avoid confusion. ] I suspect existence itself is not dependent on the existence of other things. But I have no justification to offer for this. :chin:

Or should we be travelling a different route altogether? Should we observe that:

• OR is a thing. One thing.
• Nothing else except that one thing exists.
• There is no reason to subdivide OR, except human practicality. [ We can't swallow OR whole, so we need to divide it into digestible chunks, even though this division is artificial, or maybe non-existent (the division, that is). ]

Therefore there is, and can only ever be, one thing. Nothing is distinct. Thus the one and only thing that exists - OR - necessarily exists by itself. Is that the answer to this riddle? :chin:

There is no riddle!

'Thinghood' is a word ascribed by humans to focal aspects of their common experiences and expectations of experience.
'Existence' is merely another word suggesting the utility of such 'thinghood'. Some 'existence' is disputed (like atheists disputing 'God') because the utility of the concept is disputed. Existence need not always imply 'physicality' as this is merely that aspect of potential experience which involves common sensory physiology of observers.

Words do not represent 'things' in the sense of 'stand for objects'...they RE-present 'things' in the sense of 'interaction events brought to attention of mind'.

NB Attempts to use 'logic' with respect to 'existence' is imo futile, because logic presupposes 'thinghood' as axiomatic.

Or existence is just an absolute presupposition of thinking, at a level where it is not usefully questioned, but just presupposed. Even if one tries to define existence, one runs into paradox - what is existence to be defined in terms of? As such, perhaps the only utility is to acknowledge that most of us simply uncritically presuppose existence.

And those who question it on an obscure journey in which the questions and their definitions themselves matter a great deal.

Well, imo all 'absolutes' are religious, the irony being that it is mainly in religion where 'existence' is questioned. (Obviously I'm discounting the niche area of particle physics in that generalization, in order to avoid what pragmatists call 'a futile reality debate' ) But most of the time, we don't question 'existence' at all 'uncritically' or otherwise. Its simply not 'an issue'.! What we 'presuppose' is that we know what we are talking about !

NB 'Definitions' are a poor alternative to Wittgenstein's 'meaning is use'.

I don't think so. Try this...
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1309/1309.0132.pdf — fresco

This is good, in that with no outside to Totality that could. have absolutes, all within would be relative.

Rovelli's latest book is where he has covariant quantum fields remaining as all that is.

Awesome analysis I must say (along with the other contributions)!

I'll add to the mix of things : Mathematical Realism v. Idealism.

The question is, does math exist by itself where it is discovered from time to time by us, or did we create it?

Thus:

"The question has engendered two positions: mathematical realism, which states that math exists whether we do or not, and that there is math out there we don’t know yet, and maybe never can. This position may require a degree of faith, since, “unlike all of the other sciences, math lacks an empirical component.” You can’t physically observe it happening. Anti-realists, on the other hand, argue that math is a language, a fiction, a “rigorous aesthetic” that allows us to model regularities in the universe that don’t objectively exist. This seems like the kind of relativism that tends to piss off scientists. But no one can refute either idea... yet. The video above, from PBS’s Idea Channel, asks us to consider the various dimensions of this fascinating and irresolvable question."

model regularities — 3017amen

Math is very amenable to regularities.

I suppose math became of numbers of things and then went toward the relations of things. Early on, we may have had words for one, two, and a few, but then maybe '4' and more were invented so would say how many stones or sheep we had.

Yeah it's a so-called vexing problem being pretty much insoluble. There is a thread in the Philosophy of Mathematics forum here that is quite long, where you could find some more information.

In the end perhaps it's like evolution versus creation. Or once again if one were to choose not to dichotomize it it could be thought of as a little of both. Kind of like in the ground where we discover oil and then we make products out of it.

In any case I simply follow what theoretical physicist Paul Davies posits in his book The mind of God, which is I believe mathematics always existed out there in a platonic sense. Which I think would be another one of those synthetic a priori statements like 'every event must have a cause' LOL.

'every event must have a cause' — 3017amen

Except for the causeless bedrock that has to have random events.

I think something can exist by itself. Indeed, I think some things must be capable of this, otherwise nothing whatever could exist (and clearly some things exist).

Every object that exists is either complex or simple. That is, it is either made of simpler things (in which case it is complex) or it is made of nothing simpler than itself. Those exhaust the possibilities. Complex and simple - everything existent is one or the other.

Clearly not everything can be complex. For that would lead to an infinity of complex things and there cannot be an infinity of anything.

So, if there are some complex things, then there must be some simple things from which the complex things are constructed.

All extended things - so all objects that occupy space - are complex. For all objects possessing extension can be divided. Thus, no extended object is a simple object.

A simple thing, then, must lack extension. That is, it is must be something that does not occupy space (for if it occupied any space, it could be divided and that would demonstrate it to be complex).

The simple things - things that must exist if anything exists - therefore do not occupy any space.

Furthermore, simple things, by their very nature, exist. For a simple thing can neither be constructed - for there is nothing from which one can construct one, as they have no ingredients apart from themselves - not destroyed (for there is nothing into which one can deconstruct it). Thus simple things exist, and exist of necessity.

Complex things cannot exist absent simple things, but simple things can exist absent complex things.

So, can anything exist by itself - yes, a simple thing can.

Do such things exist - yes, demonstrably.

I think something can exist by itself. Indeed, I think some things must be capable of this, otherwise nothing whatever could exist (and clearly some things exist).

:grin: That 'I' does not 'exist by itself'. Its status is predicated on the 'existence of others' from whom it acquired the pronoun 'l', and the word 'existence', within the cognitive differentiation process (I called 'thinging' above) in which human languge segments 'the world' according to human needs.
As for the statement .... 'simple things by their very nature exist'....this must be the epitome of a vacuous tautology !

Things are thinged by thingers. The thing we call 'existence' is thinged, like any other concept, relative to our needs.

You haven't addressed anything I've argued.

Do you deny that all objects that exist are either complex or simple? If so, what is this third kind of thing that is neither simple or complex?

If you accept that all things are either complex or simple (and you must, for they exhaust the possibilities), then do you think that there can be an infinity of complex things? Or, to put it another way, do you believe that an object can have an actual infinity of ingredients?

if you agree that no object can have infinite ingredients, then you must agree, on pain of stupidity, of if anything exists, some simple things exist.

And if you agree that some simple things exist, and understand that this means they cannot be created or destroyed, then you agree that some things can exist by themselves.

Let me ask you a question. Do you agree that your existence is just as temporary as an ocean wave which is transient dynamic structure 'observed' by humans? And do you agree that all we call 'things', including 'atoms' are in essence similar transient structures subject to quantum dynamic fluctuations as defined by humans?
If you understand that level of analysis, then you will see that nothing can be separated from the observation process.

No, I don't agree with that.
But you can't answer a question with a question, so kindly answer mine.

Its a vacuous qustion because 'simplicity' and 'complexity' are defined relative to human needs. The more sophisicated issue is whether what we call 'explanation' is 'top down' or 'bottom up'. The fact that we operate in our short everyday lives as though 'things' have 'objective existence' works from a pragmatic pov, most of the time, but has no philosophical import.

Total and utter gibberish. All objects are either simple or complex. if you think not, then describe the third category. You won't because you can't. Tara.

:smile:
Tara indeed !...and give my regards to the old lady who claimed 'it's turtles all the way down' !

That's you - you're that lady. Don't you realize?

It can't be turtles all the way down - that's the point. My point, not yours. My word!

No. Your point is that there is a 'final turtle' you call 'a simple thing'. Physicists would tend to disagree.

As you seem to prefer to talk about turtles, here is my question again: is it turtles all the way down, or does there have to be a bottom turtle who is on something else - something that is not a turtle?

Physicists do not speak with one voice. Plus it wouldn't matter what they said on this topic as it is not a topic in physics, but metaphysics. What next - are you going to tell me what bakers would say about it?

Sorry, but I find it difficult talking to someone who doesn't understand the circularities of their own 'naive realist' assumptions. So I leave you with my own 'tara' and Rovelli's point that 'things are merely repetitive observation events'.
Have fun!

what you find difficult is addressing proper arguments, but feel free to dress it up in a self-serving way.

And Rovelli's point is indefensible. But you wouldn't and couldn't know that.

:So you've read Rovelli ?