What is the meaning and scope of existence?

SpaceDweller

We often talk about existence of a thing, being or not a thing or unknown, but scope of subject is not well understood...

When we say "exists" or "does not exist", to what kind of stuff existence should apply?
1. thing (ex. a car, computer)
2. being (ex. animal, God)
3. not a thing (ex. physical laws, emotions)
4. unknown (ex. dark matter, something in the context but undefined)

Similarly what preconditions must be (or don't have to be) satisfied for something to exists? ex:
1. it must be organoleptically detectable (knowing what is there)
2. it must be common phenomena (knowing something is having an effect)
3. it must be reproducible (knowing how to reproduce an effect)
4. not detectable (not knowing something it's there, but it's there)
5. it must be time consistent (not stopping to exist)

Or short question, How would you anatomize and define "existence"?
What constitutes existence and to what it applies?

Few problem examples, limitations of a language:
- Is it correct to say virtual particles exist since we know they both exist and do not exist (they pop into and out of existence)
- Similarly can we say electricity "exist"? since sometimes there is for certain no electricity (ex. thunder)

If that's not correct, then what word should be used for "existence" of things that both exist and do not exist? that is for things which are subject to time or unknown property such as virtual particles.

I could construct a lot of such questions, but I'd rather leave some imagination to you to ask and analyze.

javi2541997

How would you anatomize and define "existence"?
What constitutes existence and to what it applies? — SpaceDweller

Existence is related to awareness. Furthermore the importance of being alive, thus, have all our organs working and so on, it would be meaningless debating about my own existence if I am not aware of that. I even think that consciousness could be one of the few good examples of proving our existence.
I think, therefore I am. - Descartes.
He [Descartes] decides that he cannot be deceived about his own existence, because if he didn't exist, he wouldn't be around to worry about it. If he didn't exist, he wouldn't be thinking; so if he is thinking, he must exist. This is usually stated in Latin: Cogito ergo sum,

Hillary

Is it correct to say virtual particles exist since we know they both exist and do not exist (they pop into and out of existence) — SpaceDweller

That's the wrong, popular view. Virtual particles are single particles, rotating, oscillating, or fluctuating in spacetime. So not a pair of them (particle-antiparticle). They are just as real as "real" particles and are the medium by which real particles interact with each other. Moreover, real particles owe their existence to virtual particles and can be seen as time extended virtual particles.

180 Proof

↪SpaceDweller

I think, in matters of ontology, it is 'essential' to determine the conditions or properties which objectively differentiate an entity (1) as real (actual) from unreal (imaginary) and (2), if real, then as existing (present-causal) from not existing (absent-noncausal) — 180 Proof

Hillary

↪180 Proof

Mass psychosis. Your brain is washed clean to the bone marrow. :lol:

SpaceDweller

↪javi2541997

Agree, this applies only to beings, specifically to me, to self.

↪180 Proof

sure, but there must set of rules to differentiate real from unreal.

Mass psychosis. Your brain is washed clean to the bone marrow. — Hillary

I know 180 Proof is hardcore atheist but I'm trying hard not to turn this conversation into a God debate or to limit conclusions to ontology :smile:

btw. here is one quote I like from wikipedia:

Existence is the ability of an entity to interact with reality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence

Hillary

I know 180 Proof is hardcore atheist but I'm trying hard not to turn this conversation into a God debate or to limit conclusions to ontology — SpaceDweller

Still, you ask for the meaning if existence. How else can existence have a meaning apart from existence being being there for a reason, i.e., created with intention. If existence popped up out of nothing, what's the reason? It would be meaningless. We could fool ourselves with self-made meaning, of course. But we fool ourselves only then.

180 Proof

sure, but there must set of rules to differentiate real from unreal. — SpaceDweller

Grammar (semantics). Logic (LNC).

Hillary

btw. here is one quote I like from wikipedia:
Existence is the ability of an entity to interact with reality. — SpaceDweller

Nice quote! A single electron would get hopelessly lost in space. It's existence gets more and more confused and foggy.

Hillary

know 180 Proof is hardcore atheist — SpaceDweller

Why he is an atheist? He likes fooling himself?

javi2541997

↪Hillary

Why he is an atheist? He likes fooling himself?

I am fool too
1. Please respect others who don't follow your religious path
2. Fooling because he doesn't need an infantile subterfuge to hideaway on?

180 Proof

I know 180 Proof is hardcore atheist ... — SpaceDweller

9-to-5 I prefer Epicurean-Spinozist (but afterhours and most weekends I'm a Zapffean Absurdist).

↪javi2541997

:up:

Hillary

↪javi2541997

He is free to fool himself! I respect his not being religious! If he ir you don't wanna believe in gods it's up to you!

Hillary

Fooling because he doesn't need an infantile subterfuge to hideaway on? — javi2541997

Who's showing disrespect now?

Subterfuge from what? You are the one taking subterfuge.

SpaceDweller

↪180 Proof

Nice interest, I didn't mean to insult you :victory:

Hillary

Man requiring meaning in a meaningless world is a man to pity. The hopeless search to fill the meaningless void with self-invented meaning broadens the void even more and he probably gets swallowed by the ever growing void, eventually engulfing him completely. Man, I pity you! Gods to the rescue!

javi2541997

You are the one taking subterfuge. — Hillary

I don’t need any subterfuge because I don’t fear neither concern anything. I just assumed the suffering of this life we walk through. I have other view of the traditional Western values. You can call me a pessimistic or a hyper-dramatic romanticized
:death: :flower:
And what I envied most about him was that he managed to reach the end of his life without the slightest conscience of being burdened with a special individuality or sense of individual mission like mine. This sense of individuality robbed my life of its symbolism, that is to say, or its power to serve, like Tsurukawa’s, as a metaphor for something outside itself; accordingly it deprived me of the feelings of life’s extensity and solidarity, and it became the source of that sense of solitude which pursued me indefinitely. It was strange. I did not even have any feeling of solidarity with nothingness. - Yukio Mishima.

Hillary

I don’t need any subterfuge because I don’t fear neither concern anything. — javi2541997

If you don't fear the gods (you absolutely don't have to fear them) then why you still hide from them?

SpaceDweller

Logic (LNC) — 180 Proof

How would you apply it to non material things such as dark matter and physical laws, is following valid?:

1) Dark matter has an effect on the universe
- This statement implies that both dark matter and universe exists

2) Physical laws govern how universe behaves
- This statement implies that both physical laws and universe exists

Premises 1 and 2 are logical truths, therefore existence of concluded entities is true.

SpaceDweller

If you don't fear the gods (you absolutely don't have to fear them) then why you still hide from them? — Hillary

Can you please construct an argument about God from example I gave above?

Hillary

↪SpaceDweller

You mean the previous comment?

SpaceDweller

↪Hillary

yes

javi2541997

If you don't fear the gods (you absolutely don't have to fear them) then why you still hide from them? — Hillary

Again, I don’t need to hide from anything. God is not my concern neither my answers to my problems.

Hillary

↪SpaceDweller

Okay, I'll give it a try. A constructive critique, I hope.

"1) Dark matter has an effect on the universe
- This statement implies that both dark matter and universe exists"

Yes. But both dark matter and dark energy are ohysical features. Dark matter is probably black holes and dark energy a geometric feature.

"2) Physical laws govern how universe behaves
- This statement implies that both physical laws and universe exist."

I think the laws don't govern but describe some idealized abstract features.

Hillary

Again, I don’t need to hide from anything. God is not my concern neither my answers to my problems. — javi2541997

I'm not addressing your problems, how could I? I address the general problem of meaning and reason of existence.

SpaceDweller

I think the laws don't govern but describe some idealized abstract features. — Hillary

OK, here is an argument, existence does not imply a physical thing:

1) A red car exists
Q) Where is red car?
A) You can easily find a red car
Conclusion: Therefore a red car exists

2) Physical laws govern\describe material world
Q) Where are physical laws?
A) It's impossible to find them anywhere
Conclusion: Therefore physical laws don't exist

conclusion 1 is logical truth and conclusion 2 is logical false because premise 2 is true:
Therefore we do not need to locate non material things to claim their existence.

javi2541997

↪Hillary

You asked me why I was hiding from something... Then I answered you. If you do not like my answers or arguments it is fine but typing random messages it is quite weird...

Hillary

↪javi2541997

I like your answers. I just want to understand how the reason of existence can be found without gods.

SpaceDweller

↪Hillary

Are you saying if there is no reason for existence of an entity then such entity could not exist?

javi2541997

↪Hillary

It is not necessarily to find answers to your existence. I guess the issue is more simplistic than you really think. We do exist and we have awareness. These facts follow us in uncertainty we belong to. You are free to find some answers on God but I do not want to find anyone. I guess I am simplistic

Hillary

Are you saying if there is no reason for existence of an entity then such entity could not exist? — SpaceDweller

Yes. How can non-intelligent things, like elementary particles, and life evolving from them, exist without a reason for their existence, without intelligences that have created them?

What is the meaning and scope of existence?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions