There are things that exist, and they exist in a particular state; this particular state exists, and it is existence. — Daniel

I can't decide if this is deep or shallow. :chin:

Fish, if you want to have a proper discussion about non-actuals, then why not start a thread? Or we could have a debate - that would be fun, and I have a bit of time over the next couple of weeks.

I would describe existence as the present state of things that exist which is subject to constant change. Thus, existence changes; — Daniel

No, things change. Your conclusion does not follow. Indeed, if anything it shows the opposite: that things continue to exist despite change.

Fish, if you want to have a proper discussion about non-actuals, then why not start a thread? Or we could have a debate - that would be fun, and I have a bit of time over the next couple of weeks. — Banno

I glanced at the SEP article on properties. Way above my pay grade, philosophy-wise. I haven't been following this thread, I only glanced at it, noticed your comment, and thought about purple flying elephants. I haven't any thoughts about the matter any deeper than that. But if there's a good argument that I'm wrong, that purple flying elephants don't in fact have properties, I'd be interested to know about it. Does Ahab have a leg made of whalebone? Or not, by virtue of the fact that he doesn't actually exist? That's my only other deep thought about the matter.

Well, there is an x such that x is purple and flies and is an elephant.

Does that commit us to purple flying elephants being actual thingies you might bump into at the pub?

I don't think so. All the existential quantifier - the "there is an x" bit - commits us to is a conversation. Similarly all space and time having properties commits us to is ha conversation about them. That's a seperate issue, seems to me, to our committing ourselves to there actually being space and time in the world.

Lavender wants to use mere logical considerations to commit us to there actually being stuff. That's beyond logic's pay grade. Hence my first post. It's like attempting to use a book of grammar to prove the laws of physics.

Well, there is an x such that x is purple and flies and is an elephant. — Banno

Existential quantifiers are completely different. The statement "A purple flying elephant is purple, is an elephant, and flies," is true. It's vacuously true. But "There is a purple flying elephant" is false if the universe of discourse is the world. Huge difference.

In the universe of the positive integers, the statement, "There is an even prime greater than 2" is meaningful, and false. The statement, "All even primes greater than 2 are purple flying elephants," is meaningless and true.

...if the universe of discourse is the world. — fishfry

Sure.

SO there is a need to keep track of the domain - universe of discourse - in which our conversation occurs.

And..?


(Edit: Just to be clear... your intention is not to defend the OP, is it? This is a side issue, yes? Or do you think this approach might save "Existence Is Infinite"?)

SO there is a need to keep track of the domain - universe of discourse - in which our conversation occurs. — Banno

Of course. The truth value of a proposition always depends on the model. "5 has a multiplicative inverse" is true in the rationals, false in the integers, true in the integers mod 7, false in the integers mod 10.

(Edit: Just to be clear... your intention is not to defend the OP, is it? This is a side issue, yes? Or do you think this approach might save "Existence Is Infinite"?) — Banno

I don't even know which thread this is, I didn't check. I happened to wander by and saw you claim that space and time exist because they have properties. I gave a counterexample. That's as far as it went.

Is this the "existence is infinite" thread? The OP's thesis is "not even false" in my opinion, too full of woo-itude. I gave up after he admitted that he wasn't talking about mathematical infinity but failed to provide an alternative definition. But truly it's not fair for me to take a drive-by potshot at the OP, who seems amiable and sincere and certainly has not provoked me in any way. I only mention the OP to say that I have no interest in the thread at all; but would indeed invite @daniel j lavender to supply his definition of infinity so that I can understand what he means by the word.

This is a side issue, yes? — Banno

As General Murray says to Dryden in Lawrence of Arabia: "It's a side show OF a side show."

I happened to wander by and saw you claim that space and time exist because they have properties. — fishfry

That wasn't a drive-by shot?

OK. I was using "exists" as it was used in the OP, following on that conversation., You bought something in from another domain. Sure, I might better have said space and time are actual because their properties are actual, but I don't think that would have been understood by Lavender, int he context.

Meh.

That wasn't a drive-by shot? — Banno

It was a drive-by counterexample to a statement that seemed to stand on its own without the need for the surrounding context. There was nothing pejorative about it. Whereas, by way of explaining to you why I lost interest in the thread, I was obliged to cast shade on the OP's thesis when in fact I haven't been engaging him on the subject.

OK. I was using "exists" as it was used in the OP, following on that conversation., — Banno

Ok, so you are saying that my remark was inapt because there was a particular context, which I had not taken the trouble to find out about. You may be right. But (flogging a long deceased equine) you did say that time and space have properties hence exist, and I did supply a counterexample, albeit a vacuous one. So I don't actually agree that I was wrong. Unless jumping ignorantly into the middle of conversations I haven't been following is wrong, which it probably is, and which I often do. Is that what you're saying? (Flagellates departed nag harder)

You bought something in from another domain. — Banno

Guilty as charged I suppose. Should I throw myself on the mercy of the court?

Sure, I might better have said space and time are actual because their properties are actual, — Banno

In which case you would have defeated my counterexample, negating my need to post it. So it's a good thing I mentioned it.

but I don't think that would have been understood by Lavender, int he context. — Banno

LOL. Ok. I'm all out of steam here. They can bury that horse now.

ps -- You know it occurs to me that when I do make a drive-by comment, I generally say, "I haven't followed the thread, but ..." This time I didn't. I shall put in the necessary correction. I can see that I generated confusion without meaning to.

Nothing more to say, except without the occasional drive-by, the forums would be a lot less interesting.

“Somehow it seems to fill my head with ideas—only I don’t exactly know what they are!

Imagine you have a box filled with marbles of different colours. If you shake the box (assuming there is enough space for every marble to move around), the position of any given marble relative to other marbles in the box will change, and the marbles will adopt a new configuration once you stop shaking the box. If you shake the box continuously, the position of any given marble relative to other marbles in the box will change continuously. Now, imagine you have two boxes filled with marbles. If you shake both boxes continuously, the pattern of change of all marbles in a box will most likely be different from the pattern of change of all marbles in the other box. Based on this, I assume that the pattern of change of all things in the universe is a particular pattern of change. This pattern of change must depend in the properties of the things that change in position (in the case of the box of marbles, it is the marbles; in the case of the universe, every thing that exists). So, existence would be not just the marbles (or the things that exist), but it should also include their pattern of change. In other words, existence is a pattern of change of things that exist (if there are not things that exist, there is not existence; and if there is not a pattern of change, there is not existence either). This pattern of change has the property of being the pattern of change of the things that exist. The pattern of change is limited by how much things that exist can change relative to one another (assuming things have a limited number of configurations relative to other things). The pattern of change has a rate of change for itself (not all things change at the same rate, but the system containing all things that exist must change constantly). Where do things that exist come from? Are things that exist unlimited in number? And if they are, is their pattern of change infinite or will it repeat at some point? How much things that exist can move relative to one another? And if there is not a limit to how much they can move, is their pattern of change infinite or will it repeat at some point?

...existence is a pattern of change of things that exist... — Daniel

If that's intended as a definition, then it is circular.

Moreover, existence is not a pattern of change, since there being a change presupposes that there exists something to change.

If you shake both boxes continuously, the pattern of change of all marbles in a box will most likely be different from the pattern of change of all marbles in the other box. — Daniel

Not deep. :roll:

So, existence would be not just the marbles (or the things that exist), but it should also include their pattern of change. In other words, existence is a pattern of change of things that exist (if there are not things that exist, there is not existence; and if there is not a pattern of change, there is not existence either). — Daniel

What happens if you lose your marbles?

Purple flying elephants have properties. They're purple, they're elephants, and they fly. But they don't exist. Even nonexistent things have properties. — fishfry

Yes imaginary, fictive, nonexistent things do have properties: imaginary, fictive, nonexistent properties. They also have real properties; the properties of being imaginery, fictive, and nonexistent.

Yes imaginary, fictive, nonexistent things do have properties: imaginary, fictive, nonexistent properties. They also have real properties; the properties of being imaginery, fictive, and nonexistent. — Janus

Well by gosh it's nice to have some agreement around here. :-)

You know that's a great point. Even imaginary entities have real properties. What does @Banno think about that?

Non-existence doesn't exist by definition therefore existence must always exist?
Ok, I can make the same argument for anything...
Eg. Non-thinking can't exist because by definition it doesn't exist. Therefore there is never non-thinking.
Non-God can't exist, therefore there must be a God.
So basically, if this argument works to prove existence is always existing, it must also prove that everything that exists always exist, since the existence of their absence is impossible.
Hmm, might actually have some merit.

nonexistent properties. — Janus

Even imaginary entities have real properties. — fishfry

You seem to forget that every thing we think is an idea and that as such it exists (as a series of neuronal signals). When you are imagining, you are putting together pieces of information you have experienced in your life; every idea you have is an aggregate of experiences/interactions. No one has experience an unicorn in real life, but they exist as an idea; to negate their existence would be to negate the idea you have of the world (which is not the same as what you are experiencing right now - your idea of the world must be an aggregate of experiences/interactions). No thing that is an object of thought is non-existent, or how could it be an object of thought? How can you give non-existent properties to non-existent things? Imaginary entities have real properties because they are real things (they are ideas); again, they might not be the thing itself, but they exist (your idea of your computer is as real as your computer). We need to differentiate between things that exist in our minds and those that exist in our minds AND outside of them. Things that exist only in our minds are aggregates of experiences; things that exist in our minds and outside of them are what we experience. I experience existence; and the idea that I have of existence is an aggregate of things I have experienced. How I experience existence? As the present state of all things that exist (in my mind, and in my mind and out of it) which is changing. Existence is a changing thing. You cannot separate change from existence. Now, you must accept that there are things out there we have not experienced (directly or indirectly), and thus they cannot be part of our aggregates of experiences; this does not mean we can negate their existence for we co-exist with a large number of things, and the things we experience are certainly influenced by those we do not. Existence is then a changing aggregate of things that exist. Existence is not just an aggregate of things that occupy a given position relative to each other and which position never changes. Nor is it change without things to change. It must be both.

I agree.

You seem to have missed the point, since you continue to treat existence as if it were an individual. Oh, well.

You and I are connected. This discussion is proof enough. And we are connected to everything else that exists in addition to us, everything. We are existence. Again, we must be part of a whole; there is no denying that. The whole is not the whole if it's missing one of its parts. The parts are not parts if they are not part of a whole. If the parts exist, please explain to me how the whole does not. And if the whole exists, why would we treat it as if it wasn't an object as is everything else that exists. Existence is a thing with a particular configuration in space and time. A thing you and everything else that exists is a part of. Your cells exist and so does your body. Your ideas exist and so does your self. If you treat yourself and your body as individuals, why shouldn't we treat existence as one?

This discussion is proof enough. And we are connected to everything else that exists in addition to us, everything. We are existence. — Daniel

"We are existence" does not follow. "We exist" does.

Ok so when you say "infinite," you mean something other than the mathematical definition.

What then is your definition of infinite? If you just say "unlimited" that doesn't actually tell me anything. — fishfry

Refer to the fourth note in the Additional Notes section, the last few sentences and also the Unlimited In Extent section beneath Additional Notes.

If infinity is physical, would the Continuum hypothesis then become a question of physics? And would not physics postdocs then be applying for grants to study the matter? What do you make of the fact that none have so applied as of yet? — fishfry

As stated, the idea is not that existence is completely physical. Each time someone applies for or receives a grant they are doing so to study an aspect or aspects of existence.

SO what? Things that exist may have quantity or extent; but existence does not have quantity or extent. Individual existents may have duration, but existence? — Banno

Things have quantity, extent and duration as conceded. Existence, as defined, is all things. Existence is all quantities, all extents and all durations.

This has scared me everyday since 1973. And it aint getting better.

I have nothing in my pocket. — Banno

First let's establish what a pocket is. A "pocket" is, in common parlance, usually considered to be a compartment or area designed for, designated for, or capable of storage. This considered, a pocket would practically always contain or concern space. A pocket, such as a pants pocket, almost always contains lint, or tiny fibers, keys, coins or even air. Unless of course the pocket is vacuum-sealed and airtight, which obviously is quite impractical. A pocket, by definition, concerns storage, it concerns space, or room, for some thing or some other thing. For a pocket to contain nothing, for there to be nothing (or no thing) in a pocket, including space, the pocket or compartment material would have to be completely collapsed, completely condensed, sealed and secured with no capacity for storage, in which case, it wouldn't be capable of storage or capable of containing anything anyway. It would virtually be complete integration. There wouldn't be anything "in" it because there couldn't be anything "in" it. It wouldn't even be a "pocket". It would seemingly be some infinitely dense fabric or mass incapable of containment. Which of course would still be something and not nothing. In other words, it's a faulty argument and faulty premise all the way around.

A similar statement may be made that "nothing is on the table". To demonstrate how this is erroneous all one has to do is refer to the lacquer or coat of finish on the table. Or refer to the minute dust particles or fibers upon the table undetectable to the unaided eye. From another perspective perhaps the very implications of "on the table" should be discussed. By "on the table" is it meant "making contact with the table"? In which case air, as well, would be "on the table" as air would be making contact with the object, with the table. In other words, there are things on the table. There is not nothing, there is not no thing, on the table. Nothing, no thing, does not even exist to be on anything.

Use of the term "nothing" is often a telltale sign of sloppy language. "I got it for nothing." "I have nothing in my bank account." These are two examples. Both statements are false and prime examples of sloppy language. The individual did not get whatever item for nothing or for no thing. The individual obtained whatever item for themselves or for someone else or for some purpose or application. In the sense that no money or item of trade was used in the acquisition nothing is still not introduced or present. Rather money nor an item of trade was needed in the process; some particular thing, an existent thing, is simply not involved in that particular case. Still only things are involved: individuals, an item, etc. Nothing or no thing is not introduced or involved because no thing is not and cannot be to be involved. The very notion of nothing or no thing is itself a concept, a contradictory concept, or abstraction of the mind and is also a thing. The individual does not have nothing in their bank account. They may have no funds or money in their account but that does not indicate nothing. At the very least they have digits, they have address and contact details, they have information in their bank account. Nothing, no thing does not actually exist. Nothing, no thing does not actually have presence to be referenced. What actually is referenced is some particular thing which is not present, not involved or not possessed in that particular case.

First, lets get word play out of the way. "Nothing" is the absence of some existence. Of course its defined in relation to things, because it is the negation of things. You cannot prove a definition of an identity does not exist by word play. Stating, "Nothingness is part of existence" is simply an invention of definition. Nothingness as identity is very clear. It is the absence of any other identity. What you have to prove is that this identity cannot exist in reality.

Space is part of the structure of existence. Space helps structure existence as spaces help structure sentences. Space allows for motion, transmission and dynamic interaction; it allows for things to integrate and disperse. — daniel j lavender

What you're describing is nothingness. Perhaps what you mean though is that space is an ether.
"ether or aether, in physics and astronomy, a hypothetical medium for transmitting light and heat (radiation), filling all unoccupied space; it is also called luminiferous ether."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories#Non-standard_interpretations_in_modern_physics

This is an old physics theory that fell out of favor years ago once the theory of relativity was created.

Your best bet is the Quantum Vacuum theory.
"Quantum mechanics can be used to describe spacetime as being non-empty at extremely small scales, fluctuating and generating particle pairs that appear and disappear incredibly quickly."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

Even then, note "appear and disappear incredibly quickly" At the moment of disappearance, there is "nothing". Now, it could be argued that there is something smaller or harder to detect, so perhaps we can't say for sure they really "disappeared", but this leaves another problem we've ignored until now, "space between other things".

While yes an atom is composed of neutrons, electrons, and protons, there is space between them. And yes, there are quarks floating in and around, but there is space between those as well. And when we get to the smallest particles appearing and disappearing, there is space there as well.

Meaning, we've never defined the world as not having a bit of "nothingness" in it. As I stated earlier, our definitions and word play of course mean nothing next to reality. But it seems that even at the smallest level of reality, we reach a point where "nothingness" exists, at least for a short time.

So I think until proven otherwise, the identify of "nothingness" does exist. Perhaps we are wrong. Perhaps there is an ether like substance flowing through everything, and the idea of "nothingness" is just an illusion we've constructed for a lack of information. But I don't think we have nearly enough to go on to declare that existence is eternal and infinite either. We have much more evidence for the existence of "nothing" at this point, then eternity.

Whether there is a smallest thing or not is rather inconsequential. Even if there were a smallest thing, a smallest object, a smallest particle, or a smallest pocket of space it would still be a thing, it would still be something, it would still be part of existence. A smallest thing would not create a gap of nonexistence. — daniel j lavender

I think we've seen here that it would. The only way for there not to be a gap is if it flowed and touched another of itself without any gap between them. We have yet to show such a thing exists.

A nice write up though! It is a neat idea that there is essentially an ether, and many great minds have wondered the same. The problem at this point is provability.