What is your explanation for existence? — Benj96
My supposition is that 'X exists' factually IFF the sine qua non properties of X are not (a) non-relational, (b) un-conditional, (c) un-changeable and/or (d) in-discernible from (~X). :chin:By critetion for existence I mean specific conditions something (x) has to meet before one can say x exists. — Agent Smith
What is your explanation for existence? — Benj96
By critetion for existence I mean specific conditions something (x) has to meet before one can say x exists.
— Agent Smith
My supposition is that 'X exists' factually IFF the sine qua non properties of X are not (a) non-relational, (b) un-conditional, (c) un-changeable and/or (d) in-discernuble from (~X). :chin: — 180 Proof
I find those "negatives" more specifiable (and irrefutable) than the alternative. IIRC, I've shared my negative ontology with you (& Mr. Enformy) on more than one occasion. :smile:First off, noticeably using negatives. Why? — Agent Smith
Empiricism pertains to epistemology, not ontology; and had the OP raised the question of 'epistemic criteria', my first thought would have been 'X exists' insofar as X-predicates are consistent with model-dependent realism, etc.Second, you're, to my reckoning, stipulatin' metaphysical conditions (obviously, ontology is metaphysics), but existence, over the past thousand or so years, has gone through an empirical...
What is your explanation for existence? Why it occurred, what purpose or meaning it may or may not have? What are your ethical, epistemological or personal views related to existence? — Benj96
Heidegger’s task is precisely to show that there is a meaningful concept of being. “We understand the ‘is’ we use in speaking,” he claims, “although we do not comprehend it conceptually.” Therefore, Heidegger asks: Can being then be thought? We can think of beings: a table, my desk, the pencil with which I am writing, the school building, a heavy storm in the mountains . . . but being? If the being whose meaning Heidegger seeks seems so elusive, almost like no-thing, it is because it is not an entity. It is not something; it is not *a* being. “Being is essentially different from a being, from beings.” The “ontological difference,” the distinction between being (das Sein) and beings (das Seiende), is fundamental for Heidegger. The forgetfulness of being that, according to him, occurs in the course of Western philosophy amounts to the oblivion of this distinction.
Existence refers to what is finite and fallen and cut of from its true being. (Ex- means 'apart from', 'ist' to be, to stand). Within the finite realm issues of conflict between, for example, autonomy (Greek: 'autos' - self, 'nomos' - law) and heteronomy (Greek: 'heteros' - other, 'nomos' - law) abound (there are also conflicts between the formal/emotional and static/dynamic). Resolution of these conflicts lies in the essential realm (the Ground of Meaning/the Ground of Being) which humans are cut off from yet also dependent upon ('In existence man is that finite being who is aware both of his belonging to and separation from the infinite' Therefore existence is estrangement.
...What Tillich is seeking to lead us to is an understanding of the 'God above God'. ... the Ground of Being (God) must be separate from the finite realm (which is a mixture of being and non-being) and [so] God cannot be *a* being. God must be beyond the finite realm. Anything brought from essence into existence is always going to be corrupted by ambiguity and our own finitude. Thus statements about God must always be symbolic (except the statement 'God is the Ground of Being'). Although we may claim to know God (the Infinite) we cannot. The moment God is brought from essence into existence God is corrupted by finitude and our limited understanding. In this realm we can never fully grasp (or speak about) who God really is. The infinite cannot remain infinite in the finite realm. That this rings true can be seen when we realize there are a multitude of different understandings of God within the Christian faith alone. They cannot all be completely true so there must exist a 'pure' understanding of God (essence) that each of these are speaking about (or glimpsing aspects of)...."
Too scattered, I can't follow replies like that. — 180 Proof
Freddy points out, paraphrasing both the Epicureans and Stoics (IIRC), that 'the senses don't lie, it's our interpretations of the senses which introduce lies into our perceptions.'As I pointed out perception is unreliable (re Descartes?). — Agent Smith
A paradigm (or interpretation), not a "claim". In modern terms, it's epistemological rather than ontological. Material is synonymous with embodied. I prefer to use physical to differentiate scientifically modelled material from raw material (though, yeah, the terms are used interchangeably). I think it's less overdetermining to conceive of materialism as 'nature is primarily, not ultimately, material' or 'materiality is nature's primary, not ultimate, property'. What is the 'ultimate property'? Whatever 'ultimate' is, it's still purely speculative – I fail to see how 'the ultimate' matters (no pun intended) to proximate beings (e.g. humans living and reasoning). Anyway, this conception I derive from classical atomism with a focus on void over atoms.Materialism is an ontological claim...
This utterance is unwarranted, purely speculative and, by my interpretation (above), incoherent.... all that exists is physical ...
. This can lead to optimization and bias of these organic particles which informs them to act in certain ways, like if a substance is hard to dilute, it struggles to be diluted, the same as organic material start to struggle to not be pulled apart. Over the course of enough time, such complex chemical systems can evolve to larger scale and enough self-programming bias makes the material promote itself to not be "diluted". It then starts to actively work against non-existence/death and form bonds and larger structures like cells in order to optimize existence — Christoffer
It then starts to actively work against non-existence/death and form bonds and larger structures like cells in order to optimize existence. — Christoffer
It is also presumptuous to assert that the ideas of self-sufficiency and other- dependence are coherent outside the context of human thought and understanding. — Janus
I love this analogy, or rather "plausible explanation". Basically natural selection not being restricted to just life arbitrarily but instead being a principle that applies from the get go of existence. — Benj96
One critque however, I disagree that "working together" in becoming larger more complex systems is the only choice in natural selections cards to maintain continuity/survival of an existant.
Becoming bigger, more singular and more sophisticated does work. However staying small and multiplitous also works. — Benj96
This other bias (lack of cooperation/multicellularity) is demonstrated by "static products of evolution." That is to say organisms that have remained stable and relatively unchanged for many millions of years while others have changed significantly in the same time frame. — Benj96
For example viruses, bacteria, archaea — Benj96
If pressures to adapt are a spectrum from a high state of pressure (rapidly changing conditions/high amounts of stress) at one end and consistent conditions/low amounts of survival stressors on the other, those organisms that experience the brunt of threat will change or adapt the most whine those that exist in the stagnant/static or stable zone will settle into a long-term niche without much change. — Benj96
If humans are considered the most sophisticated organisms, then we have had a target on our back for the duration of our evolution. Because we are the lineage that required the most effort to stay alive. — Benj96
But if we solve immortality, — Christoffer
Some have concluded that our modern life has detached ourselves from evolution, we don't need it anymore since we can adapt through pure will. — Christoffer
, it's logical and so should we consider our consciousness. — Christoffer
It's only when we turn to philosophy that there is any mystery to ontology. — T Clark
Time is the dimension across which change occurs; it cannot exist "in a moment" but is emergent from change. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Is immortality a solution or something detrimental? Immortality would be the end of bearing child on a planet of finite resources, not to mention the creeping in of boredom, impairment of the economy, inheritance, positive/advantageous evolutionary mutations etc. — Benj96
I'm not sure we are ever free of evolution. So long as we reproduce, changes/diversity will occur. — Benj96
I agree that our consciousness is likely the product of neccesity. How it changes in the future is difficult to predict, but its ability to create and utilise tools means the number of sensations and experiences possible for sentient beings like ourselves is sure to increase in the future - virtual reality, artificial body parts, mind uploads etc. Tech will likely be the kect frontier of sentient evolution, enabling us to expand and conquer space (something organic bodies did not evolve to do). — Benj96
The imagination and predictive abilities of sci-fi have repeatedly demonstrated that our imagination is always the step just beyond what is currently possible. And many sci-fi things if the 70s/80s/90s are now real existants. — Benj96
Is immortality a solution or something detrimental? — Benj96
Time is the dimension across which change occurs; it cannot exist "in a moment" but is emergent from change. — Count Timothy von Icarus
The problem of including the observer in our description of physical reality arises most insistently when it comes to the subject of quantum cosmology - the application of quantum mechanics to the universe as a whole - because, by definition, 'the universe' must include any observers. Andrei Linde has given a deep reason for why observers enter into quantum cosmology in a fundamental way. It has to do with the nature of time. The passage of time is not absolute; it always involves a change of one physical system relative to another, for example, how many times the hands of the clock go around relative to the rotation of the Earth. When it comes to the Universe as a whole, time loses its meaning, for there is nothing else relative to which the universe may be said to change. This 'vanishing' of time for the entire universe becomes very explicit in quantum cosmology, where the time variable simply drops out of the quantum description. It may readily be restored by considering the Universe to be separated into two subsystems: an observer with a clock, and the rest of the Universe. So the observer plays an absolutely crucial role in this respect. Linde expresses it graphically: 'thus we see that without introducing an observer, we have a dead universe, which does not evolve in time', and, 'we are together, the Universe and us. The moment you say the Universe exists without any observers, I cannot make any sense out of that. I cannot imagine a consistent theory of everything that ignores consciousness...in the absence of observers, our universe is dead'. — Paul Davies, The Goldilocks Enigma: Why is the Universe Just Right for Life, p 271
It is also presumptuous to assert that the ideas of self-sufficiency and other- dependence are coherent outside the context of human thought and understanding. — Janus
Not sure if it is presumptuous. All physical phenomena and occurrences are fundamentally presumptions by humans - in that "presumption" is a behaviour of sentient/conscious beings that can "presume".
That doesn't mean presumptions are incorrect. If we take scientific method as a source of proof of presumptions - then some presumptions (theories, hypotheses etc) have been proven to exist regardless of individual/personal subjective experience.
In that case some presumptions are facts and others are yet-to-be-proven beliefs. — Benj96
The commonsense definition for existence is indeed that of the common man (and common animals), who believe only what they can see. But philosophers are not limited to the physical senses to understand the world. Instead, where their senses fail to see, they infer the invisible links of geometry. So they turn to metaphors (analogies to concrete things) in order to communicate their idiosyncratic understanding of the unseen world. That's why I call Reason : "the sixth sense", which is uncommon even among human animals.Picking up where I left off, this thread must necessarily discuss the criterion for existence - the commonsense one used by the man on the Clapham omnibus, the scientific one, the philosophical one, the religious one, any idiosyncratic ones as well. — Agent Smith
That's why I call Reason : "the sixth sense", which is uncommon even among human animals. — Gnomon
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.