The way I see it, the first two absolute, fundamental truths are:

1. Something exists; which leads us to also be certain that
2. Something is aware of existence.

They could potentially be the same thing - depending on what it means to ‘exist’.

1. Something exists; which leads us to also be certain that
2. Something is aware of existence. — Possibility

How is that going to help me make my breakfast?

The way I see it, the first two absolute, fundamental truths are:

1. Something exists; which leads us to also be certain that
2. Something is aware of existence. — Possibility

If fallibility is accepted as a possibility, then even "something exists" is not absolutely necessarily true, since one could just be failing to understand what those words even mean. You can never prove that you have evaluated your proofs correctly.

If fallibility is accepted — Qmeri

If fallibility is accepted then fallibility exists and that is something.

If fallibility is accepted then fallibility exists and that is something. — ovdtogt

Don't misrepresent. I said:"if fallibility is accepted as a possibility". Therefore nothing is accepted as true or existing.

if fallibility is accepted as a possibility" — Qmeri

Something has to exist (for fallibility) to be accepted. Fallibility can not exist in a void.

If fallibility is accepted as a possibility, then even "something exists" is not absolutely necessarily true, since one could just be failing to understand what those words even mean. You can never prove that you have evaluated your proofs correctly. — Qmeri

Even if you fail to understand what the words mean, you can still see that something exists without expressing it in a language. There are thoughts, there are experiences, even if I don’t name them. You don’t need to evaluate a proof that there is something when experiencing is the immediate fact. Call it experience, call it thought, call it existence, call it however you want or call it nothing at all, it is still something.

If you reach the conclusion that nothing exists then how can you experience anything at all? If nothing exists how is it that you do something? You don’t have to accept the words I say as proof, you don’t even have to read words of think of words, you can see and understand without all that. But if you deny existence, as long as you do or experience anything you are contradicting your denial.

And indeed as ovdtogt says, accepting fallibility as a possibility is accepting something, it is doing something. But also failing to understand is failing to understand something, and evaluating a proof incorrectly is still doing something. You can’t deny existence without contradicting yourself constantly.

Even if you say that contradicting oneself is fine, contradicting oneself is still doing something. And so on and so forth.

Something has to exist to be accepted. — ovdtogt

Or one can simply be mistaken in that evaluation.

Or one can simply be mistaken in that evaluation. — Qmeri

Something has to exist to be mistaken. Mistaken can not exist in a void.

For 'I think' an 'I' has to exist.

Or one can simply be mistaken in that evaluation. — Qmeri

If one is mistaken then one exists, if an evaluation is made then that evaluation exists, if that evaluation is incorrect it is still an evaluation, if the evaluation of the evaluation is incorrect it is still an evaluation, if it is incorrect that it is an evaluation it is still something, ...

it is incorrect that it is an evaluation it is still something, ... — leo

For something to be contemplated, something has to exist to do the contemplation. We just don't know what that 'thing' is and we will never find out because we can't step out of 'our' reality as we can't escape from 'our' 3 dimensional, 4 including time, prison.

Something has to exist to be mistaken. — ovdtogt

If one is mistaken then one exists, if an evaluation is made then that evaluation exists, if that evaluation is incorrect it is still an evaluation, if the evaluation of the evaluation is incorrect it is still an evaluation, if it is incorrect that it is an evaluation it is still something, ... — leo

Okay, you clearly don't get the point of my argument. Your derivations are logically valid, but our evaluations that they are logically valid, including the evaluation of the derivation that even failed derivations need to exist to fail, can all be fallible. We might always be just talking words that don't represent any kind of truth and no one just realizing it.

Okay, you clearly don't get the point of my argument. — Qmeri

I get you want to argue that absolutely nothing is known, or nothing is known for certainty?

We might always be just talking words that don't represent any kind of truth and no one just realizing it. — Qmeri

The words still exist, if the words are an illusion there is still the illusion that there are words and the illusion is something, ...

Yes it is very difficult to deny we exist.

Well, this is starting to repeat itself since I would counterargue with the exact same argument and your counterarguments also seem very similar.

If fallibility is accepted as a possibility, then even "something exists" is not absolutely necessarily true, since one could just be failing to understand what those words even mean. You can never prove that you have evaluated your proofs correctly. — Qmeri

What I have written here is my expression of what I can be certain of. That’s not to say the words are true. What those words mean for me is true. I could be using the words differently to how you might interpret them, sure. I’m certainly open to approaching a shared meaning using different words or even different forms of expression. But it still starts with an expression, and this is the one I offer in this discussion, FWIW. I’m fairly confident in its truth regardless of possible alternative meanings of each word, but I’m also happy to be proven wrong.

Yes it is very difficult to deny we exist. — ovdtogt

Well, this is starting to repeat itself since I would counterargue — Qmeri

You find it very difficult to accept philosophically that you exist?

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.

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

Yes it is very difficult to deny we exist.
— ovdtogt

Well, this is starting to repeat itself since I would counterargue
— Qmeri

You find it very difficult to accept philosophically that you exist? — ovdtogt

I see you are avoiding my question.

You find it very difficult to accept philosophically that you exist? — ovdtogt

No, I do accept it philosophically, since I do consider logical necessities the highest form of proof. I just don't think even showing something to be a logical necessity is absolute proof, since we could just have made a mistake. Making a mistake about something being a logical necessity happens quite often.

don't think even showing something to be a logical necessity is absolute proof — Qmeri

Only dogmatic religion is absolute. Philosophy is speculative religion and all we have is logic to guide us. Without logical (necessity) we are groping around in the dark without a candle.

1 and -1 together are zero. Zero is nothing but 1 and -1 are something. — ovdtogt

Yes -1 + 1 = 0, but -1 * 1 = -1 for instance, why do you assume that a sum of energies equal to zero implies nothingness? That’s an arbitrary assumption. As I said it is possible that the total energy of the universe is constantly zero, yet you agree that the universe is not nothing, so clearly a sum of energies equal to zero does not imply nothingness.

In nothingness there is no such thing as energy, in nothingness energy isn’t equal to zero it doesn’t even exist. Something being equal to zero doesn’t imply that nothing exists. If I have 2 apples and you have 2 oranges, and I give you 2 apples and you give me 2 oranges, I now have 0 apple and you have 0 orange, does that mean that the apples and oranges have ceased to exist? No, the apples and oranges have moved, whereas their total number has remained constant. Same idea with energy, energy changes locally while its total number remains constant, we’ve defined that number to be 0 because it’s neat but we could have picked any number as long as we remain consistent in the calculations.

That is a misconception. It does not fluctuate between positive and negative Two particles (positive and negative) briefly come into being and disappear again.

"This allows the creation of particle-antiparticle pairs of virtual particles."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation — ovdtogt

See the first sentence in your link:

“a quantum fluctuation is the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space”

A temporary change in energy, meaning that on small scales the energy doesn’t stay constantly at zero, and it doesn’t become only positive either, so it does fluctuate between positive and negative, it becomes positive in a tiny volume while it becomes negative in another tiny volume nearby, and that fluctuates, the same location is not always only positive or only negative.

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? — Qmeri

Again, even if you evaluate everything incorrectly, there is still an evaluation occurring. If you think things that don’t represent anything, there are still things that are thought. However you twist it, there is something occurring.

Again, even if you evaluate everything incorrectly, there is still an evaluation occurring. If you think things that don’t represent anything, there are still things that are thought. However you twist it, there is something occurring. — leo

Think of it this way: you are using logic against an argument where the whole point is that we can always fail at logic. Logical necessity of existence is a good logical necessity. But like with all logical conclusions - whether they are about a logical necessity or anything else - we could always just be mistaken. People make mistakes about logical necessities quite often.

The way I see it, the first two absolute, fundamental truths are:

1. Something exists; which leads us to also be certain that
2. Something is aware of existence.

They could potentially be the same thing - depending on what it means to ‘exist’. — Possibility

Indeed, I would say that in the most general sense they are the same. Because for instance what would it mean to experience a color or have a thought without an awareness of it? In any experience there is some level of awareness by definition.


I thought that the truth of “something exists” was uncontroversial and that we would debate on the truth of “at least two things exist”, however it seems that some people already don’t agree that “something exists” is true, but that’s good, it shows that the truth of it isn’t that obvious to some and that’s why it’s important to help them see why it’s true.

Think of it this way: you are using logic against an argument where the whole point is that we can always fail at logic. Logical necessity of existence is a good logical necessity. But like with all logical conclusions - whether they are about a logical necessity or anything else - we could always just be mistaken. People make mistakes about logical necessities quite often. — Qmeri

But the particularity of “something exists” is that even if you believe you are mistaken about it, it still implies that “something exists” is true because in order for something to be mistaken something has to exist. It is important to see that not all truth is relative. Even if you don’t accept the argument, discussing with me or reading words is a proof that something exists.

If you don’t accept anything as a proof, then what do you accept? If you accept something, by definition something exists. If you don’t accept anything, how do you decide what to do?

One can surely keep saying “nothing exists” no matter what we say to them, yet by their very assertion they contradict themselves. They may not see it, but they’re still doing it. In another thread you explained clearly how fundamental contradictions are impossible, and I agreed, so if you have the ability to see contradictions you should have the ability to see that asserting “nothing exists” is a contradiction. Or you can simply keep repeating that we don’t know that but that won’t ever get us anywhere.

Now I presume that you do philosophy in order to reach some goals. These goals presuppose that something exists, and that there are things that can be known. You may keep disagreeing and keep saying that we cannot know, but deep down you know it’s true.

But the particularity of “something exists” is that even if you believe you are mistaken about it, it still implies that “something exists” is true because in order for something to be mistaken something has to exist — leo

You seem to think there is something particular about "something exists" as a logical necessity since being mistaken about it is also a logical impossibility. Try the same thing with any logical necessity. They are all like that. "All bachelors are unmarried." Is that true in all possible worlds? Yes! Therefore it's a logical necessity. "Someone thinks that "all bachelors are unmarried" and is mistaken." Is that untrue in all possible worlds? Yes! Therefore it's a logical impossibility.

There is nothing special about "something exists" as a logical necessity. The logical impossibility of being mistaken about it is just so in your face that people get that intuition.

Note that when I say that “something exists” I’m not saying that “only one thing exists” but that “at least one thing exists”. So “at least two things exist” does not negate “at least one thing exists”, it is simply more precise, they are both true as long as we prove that at least two things exist. — leo

You can start with an assumption like this, but it is really necessary to clarify what you mean by "thing". 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. In this way we remove, from the starting premise, the duality which necessarily follows, created when you see the necessity of a plurality of things. The essence of this duality is really derived from the need for a boundary which separates individual things. If there is a multiplicity of things, there is necessarily a separation between the individuals, and this separation, forming the boundary between one thing and another, is a different sort of substance from the things themselves, so we get a substance dualism. If a multiplicity of things are all made of the same substance, there must be a different substance which separates the individual things.

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.

There could be several things existing completely in isolation from one another, in which case there would be no relation between them. However I would agree that we couldn’t know of these things if they were completely isolated away, so regarding this existence I agree to think of existing things as being related in some way. — leo

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. So whenever we conclude that there is a multiplicity of things, we need to assume that there is something else, other than these things, which acts to separate them. This is the case regardless of whether the separation is absolute, as in your example, or relative as in my example. In each case there must be something real which separates the thing, or else they are not really separate things.

I wouldn’t appeal to the theory of relativity in the argument since it is based on several unproven assumptions, and here we are trying to find what we can be certain of regardless of what we assume. We can’t appeal to scientific theories which are based on induction which is unproven itself, so we’re left considering existence in the now.

…

It could be that a thing composed of parts remains unchanging as long as it is not influenced by another thing, and that when it is influenced only parts of the thing changes. So I don’t agree that a thing composed of parts necessarily always changes. — leo

OK, this is the difficult question. 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.

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.

It can be doubted, maybe existence came from nothing or maybe it was always there. From a limited point of view within existence we can’t say, and there is no point of view outside existence by definition. There is already something so we don’t see anything coming from nothing, even if something seems to come from nothing we can say that it came from something that exists but that we don’t see. But without seeing the whole of existence we don’t know, so it can’t be said to be a fundamental truth, it’s rather a working assumption. — leo

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. I implore you not to dismiss inductive principles as unsound, because then you are left with nothing to base your principles on. You could make up any system of consistent and coherent imaginary principles and claim that your system is sound, because it is coherent and logically consistent, when really you have no means for verifying that system.

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.