OK, that makes sense. I have five apples here, and an identical number of oranges over there. The oranges does not represent a new five, even if it is a different instantiation of five things.Then did you mean the DNA as an abstract thing? In that case, it is a single abstract thing, identical (in every way) to itself. — litewave
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.[/quote]This also makes sense. Interestingly, the naming of it creates it. To physics, it is all just particles and events and relations, but the grouping of them, extended in spacetime, is encapsulated by the name 'candle', which has meaning to the user of the language.OK, how about the candle?
— noAxioms
This is worth a reply on its own. Thank you for this different definition, which admittedly seems not to reference a context, but is one implied? More later.Not sure why we're nailing down the usage of identical in this topic.
— noAxioms
Existence in the most general sense means being identical to oneself and different from others.
It seems things exist against a background of other existents, not against nonexistent things. So a horse is a horse because it is not a shrub, not because it isn't a unicorn. If everything was a horse, there would be no horse. There would indeed be no background, and I cannot visualize that. Part of the description of a horse is where it stops.You’ll have to explain this better. The main crux that I don’t yet understand: how is a horse—which is one particular existent—in any way compare with the sum of all existent things? The argument I provided was for the latter; and I can’t yet make sense of how it could be meaningfully applied to the former (or to any particular existent for that matter).
Less pivotally, you’ve lost me with how a horse can be distinguished as such without it holding a background of not-horse; I’m thinking background in terms of shrubs, the sky, a tree or two, etc. But even an imagined or dreamed horse will have some background that is itself distinguishable as such … no? Then again, say you try your hardest to visually imagine a horse with no background; let me know if you can visually imagine this such that there is no color or shade of grey, white, or black to this not-horse realm. I know I can’t. Which isn’t to say that I can’t focus my attention on the imagined horse such that the non-horse background is not payed attention to; but this non-horse area will still be relatively dark, or light, or something. This not-horse realm is then a background to the visually imagined horse. — javra
This was commented on by others. The singularity is but one event in a much larger collection of events in the context. It is a special boundary event to be sure, and none of the other ones qualify as the edge of it, but it still seems to be but one event in that context. The entire context is what perhaps lack a context of its own. I see this as the same wording you are reaching for here, but I don't envision the singularity as a context free existent of its own.There’s being in and of itself and then there’s things that stand out in one way or another—or, to be more up to date with the thread, things that have a context. Both givens with being and things that have a context are existents, but while being encapsulates all things with a context—such that all things with a context are—not all forms of being are things with a context.
To hopefully better phrase a previously given example: 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.
Why effect? The word implies a cause, contradicting ex nihilo. 'Resulted' is a verb tense implying time is not part of the collection, but something (time, perhaps space as well, but not ex nihilo) into which the Big Bang happened, again a contradiction. All these references seem to imply a deeper context, and the metaphysical mayhem resulting in the conflict between that context and the ex hihilo.One way of putting it: if the Big Bang resulted from absolute nonbeing, then it was an ex nihilo effect. Allowing for such can result in metaphysical mayhem if one is to be consistent about what one upholds—which is one strong justification for the very old philosophical proposition that “nothing can come from nothing” (maybe a different issue though, this were there to be disagreements with this outlook on ex nihilo effects).
Existed? That wording contradicts there not being time. How can time not yet exist? Maybe it will exist in an hour. Sorry, my eternalist leanings are really showing through here. If the universe defines time, then it doesn't have the property of an object within that temporal context, of needing to come into existence from nonexistence. Being one of those things myself, such thinking is hard to set aside. The intuitions are what make us fit.On the other hand, as our models of spacetime break down the further we conceptually move back through the Big Bang, we are left with the alternative that there initially existed a state of being devoid of both space and time.
Agree with this. The way you define cosmos is an objective description, not confined to things existing in <X>.But, getting back to the reasoning first offered for the sum of all existents, let “the sum of all that exists” be here termed the cosmos. If one wants to uphold multiple universes, then the cosmos would encapsulate all these multiple universes. 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. The existence of things with context is a product of pertaining to the cosmos as one of its many parts, imo.
One of the simplest ones is that of places beyond the Hubble sphere. Physics says the universe is infinite. There's not a place you can be at the edge where you see stars only on one side. Given that, are there stars 50 billion light years distant? If so, that star defines another universe, completely beyond empirical reach from here. Light from anywhere in that universe will never reach us. If it doesn't exist, then there must be a furthest existing star, from which no other stars in that direction are visible.In retrospect, though, I’m arguing from a point of view not very sympathetic to there actually being multiple physical universes. If you’re leading enquiry is into how our universe’s existence compares to those of other universes, this is something that I’m not qualified to comment on.
Hits (nonexistent!) 'like' button. I'm apparently looking for something useful.Hey, this is metaphysics. It's not true or false. It's enlightening or misleading. It's useful or not. — T Clark
Just for my $0.02: I think love is a physical thing in the same category as the moon. Not an object, but a complex physical relation of matter, not just an an abstraction like Santa and Math. I can give coordinates to an instantiation of love. A simpler relation is velocity, not a property of any physical thing, but a relation that a physical thing can have with some reference. Of course I can give coordinates to Santa as much as I can to my invisible friend at my side, both being references to mentally constructed objects.I'm a little confused by your formulation, but let's try this - Yes, this dfjsl-ajfl exists as much as Santa, love, math, or the moon. — T Clark
Yes, that's what started this topic. I felt myself to be begging when I pushed this problem.I think the idea of objective reality is hard to support in this context. I think its existence is worthy of examination. That is not a new idea. You have assumed the existence of the physical reality of objective reality independent of human conceptualization. I think you have begged the question.
I find this true, but circular. A thing exists if it is part of the context of all existents. That's just a tautology. But delimited by some objective criteria such as logical possibility, the distinction seems to be drawn. The universe (our spacetime, or perhaps our quantum-mechanical wad of inflation stuff in which our spactime is defined, exists due to its logical consistency. There is no larger theater in which the universe is instantiated and built/played out.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
More on this. Wouldn't something nonexistent be identical to itself? Take the smallest postive real number, or javra's dfjsl-ajf'l, something not logically possible (mostly due to that four-sided triangle bit). How about the 'like' button on this forum. It seems not to exist, but it is logically consistent, and identical to itself. Perhaps it exists, but is not present in the context of the features of this forum. Were it not to exist at all, I could not complain of the nonexistence of it in this context.Existence in the most general sense means being identical to oneself and different from others. — litewave
Mathematicians are not making a reference to the largest number.And yet mathematicians talk about and use the concept of infinity in productive ways all the time. — T Clark
Only way? There is nothing possible yet unnamed, totally not known by any entity capable of knowing about things? Is that what you're saying?Second - no. It doesn't bring something into existence "in the context of ideas." It brings it into existence in the only way things are brought into existence. — T Clark
Interestingly, the naming of it creates it. To physics, it is all just particles and events and relations, but the grouping of them, extended in spacetime, is encapsulated by the name 'candle', which has meaning to the user of the language. — noAxioms
Thank you for this different definition, which admittedly seems not to reference a context, but is one implied? — noAxioms
Wouldn't something nonexistent be identical to itself? Take the smallest postive real number, or javra's dfjsl-ajf'l, something not logically possible (mostly due to that four-sided triangle bit). — noAxioms
How about the 'like' button on this forum. It seems not to exist, but it is logically consistent, and identical to itself. Perhaps it exists, but is not present in the context of the features of this forum. Were it not to exist at all, I could not complain of the nonexistence of it in this context. — noAxioms
AF(F(Vulcan) <-> F(Vulcan)) is tautologous.
Therefore, Vulcan exists ??? — Owen
The naming creates the abstract grouping at best. Sure, the name makes no physical changes to the atoms, events and whatnot that comprise the group itself.I wouldn't say that naming something creates it. The candle is objectively there, as a collection of atoms. Just because we find this collection interesting enough to give it a name doesn't mean we created this collection by naming it. — litewave
I have a hard time with this one. Perhaps I don't exist because I am a contradiction in some way not identified. The lowest positive real number seems to have the identity named, and has obvious properties like being the inverse of the largest number. A sufficiently complex nonexisting thing might have the property of self awareness, and yet is not identical to itself due to some contradiction deep in some unexplored corner.A nonexistent has no identity, so I don't think it makes sense to regard it as identical to itself. The definition of a four-sided triangle, for example, denies that the triangle is a triangle; it denies its identity. It refers to nothing. All contradictory definitions refer to nothing. — litewave
We don't think entirely differently, do we? If no world has it, then it is logically impossible. If this is a uni-world sort of physics (non-MW interpretation), then hard-determinism is what makes the alternative with the button an impossible thing.Maybe the existence of the 'like' button on this forum is logically consistent, but obviously its nonexistence is logically consistent too. If both scenarios are consistent then they both exist - but in different worlds (contexts), because it would be contradictory if the button existed and simultaneously didn't exist in the same world. We happen to live in a world where the button doesn't exist, but perhaps our copies in a different world (which is a copy of our world) can enjoy the button. — litewave
If I (or my universe context) was self-contradictory, what test for that might there be? — noAxioms
We don't think entirely differently, do we? If no world has it, then it is logically impossible. If this is a uni-world sort of physics (non-MW interpretation), then hard-determinism is what makes the alternative with the button an impossible thing. — noAxioms
I didn't assert existence yet. Suppose I am self-contradictory and thus don't exist. I am not identical to myself then, but how would I know that?If I (or my universe context) was self-contradictory, what test for that might there be?
— noAxioms
I think it would be absurd if there existed something that is not identical to itself, or something that is not different from other things. So your existence is a guarantee that you are consistent with all reality, even though it is in practice impossible for you to check the consistency of your relations to all your parts, properties, and everything else. — litewave
No, I have always favored the interpretation since the other ones require the ability to alter the past. Not impossible, but a harder pill to swallow I think. The view really messes with one's intuitive sense of self identity, and for that reason, probably meets more resistance than it deserves.Yes. Although it doesn't seem to be inconsistent for there to be parallel worlds.
Just for my $0.02: I think love is a physical thing in the same category as the moon. Not an object, but a complex physical relation of matter, not just an an abstraction like Santa and Math. — noAxioms
"And yet mathematicians talk about and use the concept of infinity in productive ways all the time. — T Clark
Mathematicians are not making a reference to the largest number. — noAxioms
Second - no. It doesn't bring something into existence "in the context of ideas." It brings it into existence in the only way things are brought into existence. — T Clark
Only way? There is nothing possible yet unnamed, totally not known by any entity capable of knowing about things? Is that what you're saying? — noAxioms
I didn't assert existence yet. Suppose I am self-contradictory and thus don't exist. I am not identical to myself then, but how would I know that? — noAxioms
Your statement above presumes the existence of the inconsistent thing. — noAxioms
Well, people in history questioning their own existence (Descartes most famously) cannot start from a begging position of considering nonexistence absurd. Why ask the question if you know what the answer is going to be?So to suppose that I am self-contradictory means to suppose that I don't exist, which is absurd. — litewave
Well, people in history questioning their own existence (Descartes most famously) cannot start from a begging position of considering nonexistence absurd. Why ask the question if you know what the answer is going to be? — noAxioms
How can something that doesn't exist have properties? There is nothing that would instantiate those properties.An inconsistent thing doesn't exist, but it still seems to have properties, so having properties is not proof of existence. — noAxioms
I assert at the beginning that existing things must be consistent because it seems absurd to me that an inconsistent thing (such as a four-sided triangle) could exist. So to suppose that I am self-contradictory means to suppose that I don't exist, which is absurd. — litewave
I thought you had equated existence to 'logically consistent', not to 'something, not nothing', which is a weaker, circular definition.I never really asked myself the question if I exist - I take my existence for granted. The reason I take it for granted is that I am conscious (consciousness) and consciousness is something rather than nothing, so it exists. — litewave
A far better question. I notice the word instatiation there, perhaps implying a thing possible but not instantiated. Let's presume a person is a physical thing, with a body and consciousness that is part of physical processes of that body. This person is one thing extended in time and space, from conception to death, head to toe. Now picture two of those persons, identical, except one instantiated, and the other not. What would be the difference between the thought processes (consciousness) of the instantiated one vs. the uninstantiated one?How can something that doesn't exist have properties? There is nothing that would instantiate those properties. — litewave
Just because existing things must be self consistent doesn't imply all self-consistent things must exist. I've been exploring the implications of the two being synonymous, but just exploration.I assert at the beginning that existing things must be consistent because it seems absurd to me that an inconsistent thing (such as a four-sided triangle) could exist. So to suppose that I am self-contradictory means to suppose that I don't exist, which is absurd. — litewave
What rule was broken? Sure, the name arbitrarily assigned to the three sided thing, but what is fundamentally impossible is equating three to four. Is the abstract rule that makes that impossible some arbitrarily assigned rule, or is three really not equal to four, even in the absence of people doing geometry?A couple of weeks later you ask me "can a four-sided triangle exist?" I don't say "No, a four-sided triangle can't exist." I don't say "That's inconsistent." I say "You've broken the arbitrary rules of the geometry game." — T Clark
A couple of weeks later you ask me "can a four-sided triangle exist?" I don't say "No, a four-sided triangle can't exist." I don't say "That's inconsistent." I say "You've broken the arbitrary rules of the geometry game." — T Clark
I've spent quite some time trying to identify all the things I take for granted. There are plenty I'm sure I've not yet identified. Some of them hold water when put to the test, but I like to put all of them to the test. — noAxioms
I thought you had equated existence to 'logically consistent', not to 'something, not nothing', which is a weaker, circular definition. — noAxioms
If existence is consistency, then the consciousness is not evidence unless it can be shown to be consistent. The fact that they've named 'the hard problem of consciousness' implies that the self-consistency of it is in question. — noAxioms
Now picture two of those persons, identical, except one instantiated, and the other not. What would be the difference between the thought processes (consciousness) of the instantiated one vs. the uninstantiated one? — noAxioms
Is 2+2 objectively equal to 4, or does the arithmetic require instantiation for the sum to be true/performed? — noAxioms
Sorry, I didn't completely answer your question about properties of an inconsistent thing, but I named some of the lowest positive real number. Those properties still seem valie, even if they lead eventually to inconsistencies. If the inconsistencies are subtle enough, the nonexistence of the thing might not be so clear. — noAxioms
It seems to me that you eliminate the existence of nothing without explicit statement of contradiction. So four-leaf clovers with three leaves don't exist, but barring that sort of contradiction, everything else does. It seems to leave completely empty the question of if something exists. I can think of no thing that is not completely abstract that is logically inconsistent. I own a four wheeled car with five wheels. Does my car not exist?That which is logically consistent has an identity and so is something. — litewave
It seems to leave completely empty the question of if something exists. — noAxioms
I own a four wheeled car with five wheels. Does my car not exist? — noAxioms
This is a cheap shot on my part. My car is four wheeled, but it has a fifth as a spare. The statement is true, but the language ambiguity doesn't count as logical inconsistency.I own a four wheeled car with five wheels. Does my car not exist?
— noAxioms
Of course it doesn't. You just defined a concrete inconsistent "thing". — litewave
This didn't really answer my question, but is simply a reiteration of your stance. I actually thought of a valid challenge to it, and it is an empirical one:A consistent something, whether it is abstract or concrete, exists. An inconsistent "something", whether it is defined as concrete or abstract, doesn't exist (is nothing).
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.