But the rules of your game preclude any such possibility. We must speak/write of things but the moment we do, the things we speak/write about exist. It's like inventing a game where you, the inventor, can't lose. The commendable creativity aside, you won't find people who'll play this game. Even if they do, they'll spend most of the time commenting on your rules (as you can see)... — TheMadFool
I also don't understand how if categorical nonexistence is possible, everything has to be random. Please explain... — TheMadFool
What I can see from your posts is you're drifting, purposely(?), into some kind of determinism. Can you elaborate on that? — TheMadFool
A triangular circle is a circle that is not a circle, so a circle and a non-circle are the same thing: there is no difference between a circle and a non-circle. — litewave
Once you assume the existence of a circle that is a non-circle you abandon the principle of non-contradiction. From that moment, all your arguments automatically refute themselves. — litewave
You're assuming that triangular circle exists (as in exists physically). It doesn't and can't exist in our universe. — BlueBanana
Within where a circle that is not a circle exists, yes. The concept of a circle that is not a circle exists within my imagination, not physically (because it's logically impossible for such a thing to physically exist). — BlueBanana
Secondly, if I could abandon the principle of non-contradiction within our physical reality that'd mean my arguments would also automatically not refute themselves. — BlueBanana
Thirdly, you yourself have shown to be capable of imagining the abandoning of the principle of non-contradiction — BlueBanana
So beings come into existence; exist in only one way, shape, form, constitution, state, etc.; and then, while in that same way, shape, form, constitution, state, etc., lose their existence and cease to exist? — WISDOMfromPO-MO
If B did not exist and then suddenly came into existence, what non-random thing explains the latter? — WISDOMfromPO-MO
Maybe at some point everybody here was like Harry Potter is now? — WISDOMfromPO-MO
then there is no difference between imagining and not imagining. — litewave
Your hypothetical situation is:
1) I can imagine the concept
2) I can not imagine the concept
3) 1&2 do not contradict each other — BlueBanana
That's what makes the situation fully hypothetical. Yet you talked about the situation and described it and imagined it. — BlueBanana
Suppose I have the thought that Earth might have another moon, call it "Luna2." If I determine that there is no celestial object that actually qualifies to be called a moon of Earth, I'll say, "Luna2 does not exist."
You will say that Luna2 does exist, as an idea. Okay, Luna2 is an idea. What sort of idea? Is Luna2 an idea of something? If so, what? — Srap Tasmaner
Suppose in a few centuries no living person has ever encountered the Harry Potter stories. It's a thought experiment. All that remains of them is a dusty box with the (by then) old books, hidden away somewhere, all else long since having been recycled.
Can it then be said that Harry Potter still exists (as a fictional narrative), perhaps as a kind of extended memory found in that dusty box?
Or, can Harry Potter only "come back to life", as it were, once someone has read the old books?
Can one speak of any ontological status worth mentioning?
It is said that Zeno devised 40 thought experiments, paradoxes, though only 9 are known, and only second-hand. We might suppose they could still be uncovered in ancient texts of course, perhaps even Zeno's own words, however unlikely it seems by now.
What might be the ontological status of these alleged 31 thought experiments supposedly devised by Zeno?
After all, I just referred to them, hypothetically at least. — jorndoe
Here's a list:
1.) An idea: A as manifested in your mind.
2.) A physical embodiment of A outside of your mind.
You ask what if it is determined that there is no 2.).
Okay, let's delete 2.) and update the list.
Here is the updated list:
1.) An idea: A as manifested in your mind.
We still have A. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
The way I see it is a particular form of a thing acquires an identity over and above that given by its composition. For example, take metal, plastic, rubber and glass and make a car. These materials have their own existence and yet, they interact to create a car whose identity as a vehicle is something more. Further interaction with its owner and his/her family will add to this identity. However, a time will come when it will be discarded, dismantled into its composite parts. We could say that it has simply changed form but it has lost the identity it acquired over its lifetime as a car. We could then say it changed its form into, hopefully, fond memories, pictures, etc. But these to will fade away over time - pictures decay, people die. Eventually, the car will literally vanish both from the physical and mental planes. It is then that the car will be categorically nonexistent. I think if we take something closer to home, like a person, the message becomes even poignantly clearer, for in death lies the answer to your question of categorical nonexistence... — TheMadFool
You have a point but it doesn't help your case because it matters not how something, anything arose. What matters is, well, cateogrical nonexistence... — TheMadFool
Please read above. — TheMadFool
the car could be physically reconstituted at a later time — WISDOMfromPO-MO
But if something spontaneously comes into existence rather than simply moving from one form of existence to another, then that means that it previously was categorically non-existent. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
I think we're veering towards the concept of identity here. To my knowledge the issue remains unresolved in philosophy. All that means, to me, is that identity is a nebulous idea - look up Ship of Theseus.
It seems you think that the identity of an object is indestructible throughout the process of change from one form to another.
My answer to that is:
Take a human being Mr. X. You will agree that there's a difference between the living Mr. X and an urn containing his ashes. I pin my argument on this difference - something has become nonexistent during the transformation from Mr. X to the pile of ash. This something may persist in memories, books, photos, videos, audio, etc. However, these too will fade and vanish. Then we have the categorical nonexistence you're looking for.
The key factors in your mind-game are the two realms of existence - the mental and physical. In my example above I've shown you an entity, a car that straddles both realms. It's a mental-physical entity. Well, now that I think of it, ALL objects are like that. In effect, identity necessarily requires aspects of both realms of existence - the physical AND the psychical. Losing the physical and/or the psychical part entails loss of identity i.e. the object becomes nonexistent. It's like the set of integers - made of positive numbers AND negative numbers. If you remove either/both, the concept/identity of integer becomes nonexistent.
So, you may reconstitute the car from its parts but that's just the physical aspect of identity. You can't restore the psychical component of the car's identity because people forget, people die. Isn't this categorical nonexistence?
But if something spontaneously comes into existence rather than simply moving from one form of existence to another, then that means that it previously was categorically non-existent.
— WISDOMfromPO-MO
I think you're begging the question, as in you're already assuming categorical nonexistence is impossible.
You can use the same rationale I provided above that the car was categorically nonexistent before it was made. It lacks the physical component of identity, existing only in the mental realm. — TheMadFool
You know that's not going to work, don't you? Can Luna2 be the idea of Luna2? That way, infinite regress lies... — Srap Tasmaner
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.