This doesn't help if something is logically consistent but nonexistent. I questioned that above when I cannot come up with an example of a consistent thing that nevertheless is known not to exist.I guess we can agree that every thing that exists must satisfy the criterion of logical consistency: it must be what it is and not be what it is not. In other words, it must be identical to itself and different from what it is not. — litewave
Linguistic ascent is the worst. Not looking for how existence is used in our language. Almost all the confusion in philosophy, especially in forum discussions, seems partially rooted in language use, which takes far too much for granted.There are some things you could try if you get stuck: — Srap Tasmaner
How would you address this reasoning?: The background to the sum of all existents either exists or does not. If it exists in some way, it is contained within the sum of all existents. If it doesn’t exist in some way, then there is no background to the sum of all existents. Both conclusions result in there not being a background to the sum of all existents, aka to existence. — javra
Seems like pretty good reasoning at first glance, an argument for a lack of distinction.
But can we apply this logic to a horse? Against what background does the actual horse stand apart if the background doesn't exist? I pick horse because it might stand out against the nonexistent (in this world) unicorn. Does the unicorn need to be actual enough for the horse to stand apart from it, in which case the contradiction is unavoidable.
We need to find logic that works for the horse (an example we believe to understand a bit more clearly) before attempting to apply it elsewhere. — noAxioms
This doesn't help if something is logically consistent but nonexistent. I questioned that above when I cannot come up with an example of a consistent thing that nevertheless is known not to exist. — noAxioms
About identical, the word is ambiguous. Twins share identical (indistinguishable) DNA but are not the same person. A lit candle seems to share numeric identity with the burnt out stub an hour later. It is the same candle (identical), but the two states are hardly indistinguishable. — noAxioms
A gravitational singularity from which the Big Bang resulted (this as is modeled by todays mainstream physics) is one such instance of a given with being that is not a thing with context. — javra
Thus defined, I still find it justifiable to uphold that the cosmos can only exists in terms of being per se but does not exist in terms of a thing with context. — javra
If you take a more general definition of "context" you will find that the singularity of the Big Bang does have a context from which it is different. The context can be anything that is not the singularity of the Big Bang, for example my cat (which exists at a different point in spacetime) or number 7 (which transcends every spacetime). — litewave
A collection of things (such as a cosmos) is also different from its parts, so the parts provide a context for the collection/whole. — litewave
I didn't say 'strand'. The DNA of twins is identical, consisting only of information, not particular details of a strand, which has properties like position.When I say that a thing is identical to itself I mean that it is identical in every way. The DNA strands of twins are not identical in every way - to say the least, they have different positions in spacetime, which makes them different things. — litewave
The whole spacetime is present, with the Big Bang singularity presumably at the beginning of the time dimension. And abstract entities like numbers are present even without a spacetime.Were the gravitational singularity addressed to be ontically real, however, it of itself would have no context - no not-singularity to which it could be contrasted. Neither entities, such as cats, nor quantities, such as the number seven, would hold presence. — javra
If by the "sum" you don't mean "collection" or "whole" but all existent things, then the "sum" is not a single thing but many things. And each of those things exists in the context of all the other things.The “cosmos” was for the purposes of the argument specifically defined as the “sum of all existents” - and not as merely a collection of things among many others. Then, to state that the context of the sum of all existents is the particular existents themselves is to equivocate both the meaning of “context” and the reasoning first quoted in my previous post. The context of a cat, for example, is not one of its ears. — javra
By that standard, mathematics, hunger, vision, and love don't. — T Clark
[...] "The unnamable is the eternally real. [...] — T Clark
I didn't say 'strand'. The DNA of twins is identical, consisting only of information, not particular details of a strand, which has properties like position. — noAxioms
In the usual usage the candle is meant as a thing extended in spacetime (enduring in time). Then the statement "candle is lit at time T" means that the candle is in the lit state at time T.OK, how about the candle? Are the two states not the same candle because of the differences in lit and burnt-out, or are they one thing, identical to itself, just extended in spacetime? Even the latter has a hard time with identity if you consider MW cloning. The statement "candle is lit at time T" has no truth value if all those states are part of one identity, and only some of those states are 'lit'. — noAxioms
Existence in the most general sense means being identical to oneself and different from others.Not sure why we're nailing down the usage of identical in this topic. — noAxioms
The whole spacetime is present, [...] — litewave
If by the "sum" you don't mean "collection" or "whole" but all existent things, then the "sum" is not a single thing but many things. And each of those things exists in the context of all the other things.
And if by the "sum" you mean the collection or whole of all existent things then this "sum" is different from each of its parts - because it is not identical to any of its parts, and so the sum is a thing that exists in relation to (or in the "context" of) its parts, which are other things. — litewave
Anyway, there is no such greatest collection, just as there is no greatest number. — litewave
If the model is inconsistent then it is not an accurate representation of reality, because reality cannot be inconsistent. I am talking about reality, not a model. Apparently there is spacetime in reality and there is a Big Bang at the beginning of our universe.Not according the to model of spacetime which breaks down and thereby leads to the inference of a gravitational singularity. — javra
If by universe you mean the collection of all existing things then there is no universe in this sense. Why? Suppose there is a collection of all existing things. Then this collection is a thing too, and another collection can be defined in which this thing is included as a part, so what you supposed to be a collection of all existing things is in fact not a collection of all existing things.Are you saying there is no universe? — javra
If it is true that unicorns have four legs then unicorns exist.
Truth is that which can be shown to be the case.
To show that 'Unicorns have four legs' is true, we need to verify it.
Verification requires the existence of unicorns and unicorn legs.
One truth about x proves x exists. ..where x is the subject of the truth. — Owen
Naming is what brings things into existence. — "T
This seems only a different context, and a different designation of which contexts are included in objective existence, a term with which I have yet to find any meaning. So naming a thing (doesn't need a name, but even any concept of it) does bring the thing into existence in the context of ideas. I see nobody being right or wrong here, but working from different contexts without stating them.Sometimes naming does not bring things into existence. — "Owen
Outlandish though it be, your description did seem to make it pop into existence in my thoughts, and you seem to realize that, prompting your parenthesized disclaimer that you're not including imagined ideas as existing things.But if I name a “five-legged, telepathic, ghost unicorn that’s been teleported to Earth by AI UFOs which have traveled back in time from a future multiverse in which planets are all shaped as four-sided triangles” as “dfjsl-ajf’l” my ontological suppositions are that this entity does not then suddenly pop into existence (in the narrow sense of existence, i.e. into the realms of objective reality) — 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.