No, this is conflating reality with existence; I hold that they are not synonymous or coextensive. Reality is that which is as it is regardless of what any individual mind or finite group of minds thinks about it. Existence is reaction with other things in the environment. Everything that exists is real (and discrete), but there are realities (like continuous space and time) that do not exist. Positions and instants are artificial creations, so they only exist after we have deliberately marked them for some purpose, such as description or measurement.The first statement affirms degrees or reality, such that some aspects of reality are more fundamental than others, with all aspects of reality (regardless of its metaphysical(?) degree) being existent by definition. The second statement implies a strict binary understanding: either something is real, and thereby existent, or it is not. — javra
A discrete position or location is established relative to a coordinate system whose origin, orientation, and unit length are all arbitrary--again, artificial creations.To address your second comment that discrete position - i.e., location - does not exist, is the computer screen that I am now seeing not located in front of me, beneath the sky and above the earth, having locations to the left and to the right at which it terminates? Are all these in fact nonexistent? — javra
No, physical things exist regardless of whether humans ever designate their positions/locations relative to an arbitrary coordinate system.Rearticulating the same, if location is to be deemed nonexistent, would the physical world (here encompassing all physical objects which are in part known via their discrete spatial positions) also be considered nonexistent? — javra
Again, being real does not entail existing.Yet both change and quantity are nevertheless real and, thus, existent – here, in a non-binomial manner but one of degrees. — javra
Yes, but again, the unit by which we measure length or duration is arbitrary. Moreover, both the stick's length and the song's duration are subject to change--we can cut off a portion of the stick, or adjust the tempo of the song.We all know where a given stick’s length starts and ends, just as we all know when a given song starts and ends – thereby making the stick’s length and the song’s duration impartially, hence objectively, real, and thereby making the stick and the song existent. — javra
No, this is conflating reality with existence; I hold that they are not synonymous or coextensive. Reality is that which is as it is regardless of what any individual mind or finite group of minds thinks about it. Existence is reaction with other things in the environment. [...] Positions and instants are artificial creations, so they only exist after we have deliberately marked them for some purpose, such as description or measurement. — aletheist
A discrete position or location is established relative to a coordinate system whose origin, orientation, and unit length are all arbitrary--again, artificial creations. — aletheist
No, physical things exist regardless of whether humans ever designate their positions/locations relative to an arbitrary coordinate system. — aletheist
Yes, but again, the unit by which we measure length or duration is arbitrary. Moreover, both the stick's length and the song's duration are subject to change--we can cut off a portion of the stick, or adjust the tempo of the song. — aletheist
Yes, that it why I offered my definitions of reality and existence--which, by the way, come from Charles Sanders Peirce.Existence is a very ambiguous term in philosophy — javra
I am having trouble understanding this question, and I wonder if there is a disconnect between what I mean by "position" and what you mean by "location." Again, what I primarily wish to maintain is that continuous three-dimensional space is not really composed of discrete dimensionless points. Put another way, there are no absolute positions in space, only those that we deliberately mark for some purpose. A physical thing does not occupy a discrete point or collection of discrete points, since it is always in continuous motion. We can only designate its position relative to an arbitrary reference frame, which is also always in continuous motion. We can agree that my computer monitor is consistently three feet in front of me, but we are nevertheless both hurtling through space along a very complex path as the earth rotates about its axis and revolves around the sun, which is revolving around the center of the Milky Way, which is moving toward and away from other galaxies, etc.How does perceptual agreement between all sentient observers that causally interact in regard to the location of physical objects - very much including where they start and where they end - come about? — javra
To clarify, I said that the unit of length (e.g., one inch) and the unit of duration (e.g., one second) are arbitrary.But, again, length and duration would be arbitrary relative to whom? — javra
--which, by the way, come from Charles Sanders Peirce. — aletheist
I am having trouble understanding this question, and I wonder if there is a disconnect between what I mean by "position" and what you mean by "location." Again, what I primarily wish to maintain is that continuous three-dimensional space is not really composed of discrete dimensionless points. Put another way, there are no absolute positions in space, only those that we deliberately mark for some purpose. A physical thing does not occupy a discrete point or collection of discrete points, since it is always in continuous motion. We can only designate its position relative to an arbitrary reference frame, which is also always in continuous motion. — aletheist
Logically, yes; actually, no. Again, what dissolves the paradox is that the arrow need not move to each subsequent midpoint as a discrete step. Even the line itself does not exist until the arrow traverses it, since a gust of wind might alter its actual path.The same conceptual dilemma emerges: if there is a distance - a start-spot and an end-spot to a given length - which has to be traversed, then there will logically be a mid-spot to this distance, this whether or not it is marked by anyone. And, also logically, there will then be an endless quantity of mid-spots getting ever closer to the end-spot but never actualizing a perfectly identical location relative to it. — javra
Likewise!Thanks for the exchange. — javra
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.