Let me ask you a question, what does "existence" mean to you?
...I would consider "existence" as "to be" (or "being"). — Bob Ross
For example, a unicorn that I imagined in my mind exists as an imagined unicorn... — Bob Ross
Excellent. Do you think the concept of "being" has always existed (or do you think that this concept had a beginning)?
Has that concept of a unicorn always existed? Or does that concept of a unicorn only exist for a certain amount of time (such as while you imagine it)? If the concept of the unicorn did not always exist, does that mean the concept of the unicorn had a beginning?
Do human beings exist? Do you think the existence of human beings had a beginning? Or do you think human beings always existed?
Has that concept of a unicorn always existed? Or does that concept of a unicorn only exist for a certain amount of time (such as while you imagine it)? If the concept of the unicorn did not always exist, does that mean the concept of the unicorn had a beginning?
Yes, any concept under the uniform existential reference can "be" or "not be" in relation to time and space. — Bob Ross
Spectacular :) So the way that people such as myself would say it, is "all concepts exist beyond time".
Your answer to the op would be, "existence was always here".
Spectacular :) So the way that people such as myself would say it, is "all concepts exist beyond time".
I'm interpreting this as an agreement, but refurbishment, of what I said. However, I do not hold that "all concepts exist beyond time".
Your answer to the op would be, "existence was always here".
I don't want to be reiterative, and if you would like to close the discussion that perfectly fine (I am enjoying our conversation, but if you would like to end it that is fine too), but I want to clarify that I do not hold that position. If you would like to explain why you think that I am somehow implicitly arguing for that statement then please feel free: but I explicitly stated I am not in agreement with that proposition.
I look forward to hearing from you,
Bob — Bob Ross
Science shows us that there is a constant cosmic substrate that manifests in our universe through the phenomenon of quantum fluctuations. — Nickolasgaspar
No, the law of conservation of energy is upheld. A quantum fluctuation is a "potentiality" for something to happen under the influence of some external particle or force.
Matter is built on flaky foundations. Physicists have now confirmed that the apparently substantial stuff is actually no more than fluctuations in the quantum vacuum.
The Higgs field creates mass out of the quantum vacuum too...all reality is virtual.
state of being for the cosmos and quantum fluctuations is its default energetic state — Nickolasgaspar
You are heading the question of the thread in a good direction, that of matching the physics to the philosophy for confirmation.
We note that the candidate for the base existent cannot be composite, for then it couldn't be fundamental since its parts would have to be more fundamental. This suggests that it has to be partless as well as of the least size. The quantum 'vacuum' fits the bill or is close to it. The base existent is therefore unbreakable, unmakeable, and thus eternal. — PoeticUniverse
What’s Fundamental has to be partless,
Permanent, and e’er remain as itself;
Thus, it can only form temporaries
Onward as rearrangements of itself. — PoeticUniverse
The Simplest can’t be made; it has no parts;
Likewise, it can’t break; ne’er ‘Nothing’ starts;
Thus, Necessity, without alternative,
Makes the Big Bang and our transient hearts. — PoeticUniverse
-The point is that "vacuum'' might not be the correct term in the case of the cosmos.The quantum ‘vacuum’ weaves the universe’s dress. — PoeticUniverse
- even being a Methodological Naturalist I would avoid the term physical. Physical is more of an emergent property of the energetic substrate so I would prefer the world Natural. Quantum fields display natural properties.Are the fields spooky as non physical?
Since the elementaries are physical,
And because they are outright field quanta,
The quantum fields are purely physical. — PoeticUniverse
- I generally agree with that. Its the most reasonable conclusion based on the meaning of those concepts and the available facts.The ‘vacuum’ has to e’er jitter and sing,
This Base Existent forced as something,
Due to the nonexistence of ‘Nothing’;
If it ‘tries’ to be zero, it cannot. — PoeticUniverse
All the temporary complexities
From the Eterne will someday fade away,
Even the universe with its grandness
Will disperse its greatness into blandness. — PoeticUniverse
What caused existence to be, and why? — chiknsld
What caused existence to be, and why?
— chiknsld
I think this is equivalent to asking "What caused logical possibility (consistency) to be, and why?" Like, why is A identical to A (and not identical to that which is not A)? Logical possibility is a necessary fact. And some years ago I came to this big revelation: there is no difference between logical possibility and existence. Why? Simply because I don't see any difference between the two and I don't even know what that would mean.
Claiming that there is no difference between logical possibility and existence may seem absurd because you may readily point to an object, for example a tree in front of your house, and say "It is surely possible (logically consistent) that that tree over there would not exist, and yet it is there - hence, logical possibility and existence are not the same." To which I would say: "Um, no. It is not possible for that tree not to be there, because it would be a logical contradiction if a tree that is there was not there." It may be logically possible for there to be another world which looks exactly like ours except for that tree, but that would be another world, not this one.
So not only is existence necessary, but everything possible exists necessarily. — litewave
Very interestingly, would this apply a lack of freewill? — chiknsld
If free will is possible (logically consistent) then it exists. But how is free will defined? Without definition there is nothing. If free will means that we can do what we want then we obviously have free will, at least to some extent. But even then, our actions would be completely determined by factors over which we have no control, in the sense that they would be determined by our wants and we cannot choose our wants. Or if we could choose our wants, we would need to want to choose the wants, so there would be a regress of wants that would either begin with a want that we wouldn't choose or it would be an infinite regress, which we wouldn't choose either because there would be no beginning to choose. — litewave
It is not possible for that tree not to be there, because it would be a logical contradiction if a tree that is there was not there. — litewave
I have two options before me, I can choose to eat a white chocolate or I can choose to eat a strawberry chocolate. I choose the strawberry chocolate.
Therefore it was never possible to eat the white chocolate? — chiknsld
By following your logic, I never actually had a choice, John was going to live no matter what? Hence, no freewill? — chiknsld
Or maybe the more rational route Is that I did have a choice, and at that very point, there were two possibilities, one that John could exist and one that John could not exist. As you say, two different worlds. Once I chose to have John, I entered into the world where there was no other choice than for him to exist? — chiknsld
Here is an even more compelling picture of necessity: everything that will happen has already happened, in the sense that every event is a part of a 4-dimensional topological object called spacetime, where time, mathematically/structurally, is just one of the dimensions, a special kind of space. Spacetime itself, with everything inside it, just exists, timelessly, eternally. It exists because it is a logically consistent object, a possible world. — litewave
There seems to be a necessary principle of composition, which means that if there are some objects, whatever they are, they automatically make up another object that is a collection or combination of those objects. And this larger object automatically combines with other objects into even larger objects, and so on. So every possible object is either composed of other objects or is a non-composite object. Pure set theory can in principle describe all these objects; non-composite objects are called empty sets and composite objects are non-empty sets that are built up from empty sets. Pure set theory is also a foundational theory for mathematics because it is able to represent all mathematical objects or properties (numbers, spaces, functions, etc.) as pure sets. That's why reality is necessarily mathematical. — litewave
But mathematics is just the structural aspect of reality, the relations between sets, or structures of relations. The objects that stand in those relations, the sets "in themselves", are something unstructured, partless (even though they stand in relations to objects that are their parts, that is, to the sets that compose them). The unstructured nature of objects in themselves may be the basis for the qualitative aspect of consciousness (qualia). — litewave
You're saying that consciousness is comprised of qualia that which without there would be no consciousness? — chiknsld
everything possible exists necessarily. — litewave
Possible vs. Actual dichotomy? Unicorns are possible (don't entail a contradiction), but they don't actually exist, do they? — Agent Smith
they don't exist here and now — litewave
Apparently consciousness consists of unstructured "stuffs" or qualities. For example the sensation of red color doesn't seem to be decomposable, although in the ontology where all objects are collections of other objects (or empty collections in the simplest case) even the sensation of red color is a collection that is composed of parts. Yet every collection is also an object in itself that is unstructured/partless and stands in composition relations to its parts. It is an object in itself that is not identical to any of its parts. — litewave
It may seem weird to say that a collection of objects is another object in itself. Like, if you have five apples, do you also have a sixth object that is a collection of those five apples? I think you do, although it doesn't seem to be a particularly noteworthy object. — litewave
But even each apple is a collection of other objects, down to elementary particles like electrons and quarks which seem to be partless but definitely are not because that would mean they are empty sets and empty sets are all the same (which an electron and a quark are not, for example) and it seems impossible for an empty set to have properties like mass, electric charge or spin. — litewave
So I think that even elementary particles have a structure although it may be physically inaccessible for us, or even physically inaccessible in general if laws of physics prevent the probing of such structure (for example, laws of physics seem to prevent probing of spatial distances smaller than so-called Planck length). — litewave
Some people think that collections are just "fictitious" objects and only non-composite objects (empty collections) are "real". That might be a psychological bias toward non-composite objects, caused by the fact that when our attention is splintered onto parts we lose the sense of an object as a whole. — litewave
So I think that even elementary particles have a structure although it may be physically inaccessible for us, or even physically inaccessible in general if laws of physics prevent the probing of such structure (for example, laws of physics seem to prevent probing of spatial distances smaller than so-called Planck length). — litewave
It would be a contradiction for unicorns to exist here and now. — litewave
What do you think the sensation is represented by? Energy perhaps? — chiknsld
What is the object made out of? Just energy? It cannot be an object if it doesn't have some sort of physicality or energy. — chiknsld
Do you think the brain is responsible for everything? Might there be a soul that is helping out? Something beyond the brain? — chiknsld
Have you explained the empty sets yet? Assuming there is no bias, what are they referring to as being real (regarding the empty set)? — chiknsld
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.