We don't ever just perceive the color red..............Judgements involve integrating all percepts into a consistent whole experience of the world. — Harry Hindu
What does a direct realist do when they say the chocolate ice cream is delicious but someone else says it is disgusting? Is the direct realist talking about the ice cream or their mental state when eating it? — Harry Hindu
There is the commonly held principle (does it have a name? "EPP" if not) that existence is conceptually prior to predication, prior to it having any property at all. — noAxioms
Perhaps that is so. It isn't a theory since it does not seem testable. Call it a premise maybe.Strange, that nowhere I could find anyone describing it as principle — Corvus
I linked to exactly that in my prior post. See the (*). I called them E1-E6, with openness for more.Could you define and list the types of existence?
Given so many definitions, the reader probably presumes his own definition instead of yours.I can only hope that the reader understands what I mean by saying that "thoughts exist". — RussellA
I'm not disagreeing with that. They're mythical to us, sure. We're perhaps we're mythical to them.I would hope that few would argue with my saying that unicorns are mythical creatures.
It seems you use 'cause' as 'necessarily causes', like there needs to be no possibility of the ski trip not being cancelled. In that case, give an example of a cause and effect that satisfies you, and then explain why no other necessary effect can also occur.The question is, can breaking a leg be said to cause cancelling a ski trip. ... Breaking a leg may contribute to your decision to cancel your ski trip, but it would be wrong to say that breaking your leg caused you to cancel your ski trip.
Yes, it is very much a valid usage, but if you read up on EPP, the word is never being used that way. Context!=========
One of the accepted meanings of "prior" is "at an earlier time".
SEP article on existence, section 1:Do you have a source that establishes the principle that existence is conceptually prior to predication to help me understand how the terms have been defined?
Mathematics, logic. Stuff like that. Take the issue of presentism or not. There being no empirical difference between the candidate interpretations, shapes and colors and visual avail you not, but they still can be used to convey language and make charts and such.What mental constructs are you pointing at when you talk about what you are thinking? — Harry Hindu
There is no issue with what one means by those words. It may or may not be true, but regardless, we can succeed at our tasks most of the time. That's what I mean by it being a pragmatic stance.That depends on what one means by, "the world is as it appears". If it means that the appearances allows us to get at the actual state-of-affairs, which it does most of the time or else we would be failing at our tasks much more often that we succeed, then what is the issue?
With you? More often than with most.How often have we understood each other's scribbles on this screen as opposed to not understanding them?
Yes. The result is an ideal (E2), not a dragon, even if describing something that's in the world (E4).When describing a dragon, you are describing how it appears visually in your mind. Your description is visual in nature.
Definition dependent. Under E2 (an anthropocentric definition), there is empirical evidence of lizards but not of dragons. Under E1, what does it mean indeed? That's a question asked in the OP, one that still hasn't been answered. I'm pretty sure Meinong is using definition E1, and for this reason, since the denial makes little sense given the other definitions.If ideas can have the same types of properties as physical objects, then what does it mean for lizards to exist but dragons do not exist?
I know. I am trying to ask and answer clarifying questions so we stop talking past each other.You are talking past me.
Good example of talking past since I cannot in any way figure out how there can be only one actual causal path to a given effect (some subsequent state). It isn't a path, it's a network. I gave four causes of my hip injury which wouldn't have happened given the absence of any of them. But from his post above, Russell seems to require a cause to necessarily (on its own) bring about the effect, and I cannot think of an example of that, so I asked for it.That is not what I was saying. Russell was making the point that, from his own position of ignorance, there appears to be multiple possible causes for some effect. He would be projecting multiple causal paths to the same effect when they are merely products of his mind (his ignorance of to the one actual causal path that led to the effect).
I would parhaps say that since the hip thing wouldn't have happened sans big bang, but Russell uses the words differently.You could say that the Big Bang is also a cause of your chipped hip.
Typically more criteria must be met to satisfy a human designation as being a real dragon. Sometimes unreasonably so, falling back to the logic, "there are no dragons, so whatever that is, it isn't a dragon". Not great logic, but frequently employed in other topics.What is the real dragon? If something looks like a dragon and breathes fire, is it a dragon? — Corvus
Another reason to be a relational stance.What does a direct realist do when they say the chocolate ice cream is delicious but someone else says it is disgusting? Is the direct realist talking about the ice cream or their mental state when eating it? — Harry Hindu
... everything we think, say, experience and even philosophize about is bounded by context. — philosch
The implications are more interesting. Existence itself becomes a property, or gets redefined to something other than the typical presumption of 'being a member of <objective> reality'. What meaningful difference is made by having this property vs the same thing not having it? — noAxioms
Given so many definitions, the reader probably presumes his own definition instead of yours. — noAxioms
I'm especially interested in how you justify that there can be no more than one effect...Also, what relevance does this quibble have to do with the topic of existence? — noAxioms
SEP article on existence, section 1 — noAxioms
I break my hip (an effect) because 1) I chose to take a walk that day 2) there was a recently repaved road 3) shoulder not properly filled 4) coyote in distant field....................It isn't a path, it's a network. I gave four causes of my hip injury which wouldn't have happened given the absence of any of them. — noAxioms
Kant says, all principles need arguments and proof why they are principles. But I don't see any such thing here.Perhaps that is so. It isn't a theory since it does not seem testable. Call it a premise maybe.
SEP calls it a principle, top of section 1 of the 'existence' page. — noAxioms
How about "Existence is perceptible object in space and time"? This must be the defacto definition of existence.Could you define and list the types of existence?
I linked to exactly that in my prior post. See the (*). I called them E1-E6, with openness for more. — noAxioms
That's what premises are. Definitions are descriptions about how certain words and terms are being used. The latter doesn't have a truth value to it. A premise or an assertion does.Definitions are really no more than unjustified assertions. — RussellA
That's a different question that 'do apples exist?". Your question already presumes they exist, and in a location at that, thus implying a sort of an E4 definition of exists.Where do apples exist?
Overdetermination concerns multiple causes, any of which would have caused the effect. I'm not talking about that. In all my examples, there are multiple causes, each of which is necessary for the effect. Take away any one of the causes and the effect would not have occurred. This is not the case with overdetermination.Over-determination is the situation where one effect has been determined by more than one cause.
I think you just listed 2 more causes, since had any of the alterations you described actually taken place, the injury probably would not have occurred.Scenario one
2) You could have walked on the road or through the field. You walked on a road.
3) You could have walked in the centre of the road or on the unfilled shoulder. You walked on the unfilled shoulder of the road.
4) You could have been looking to houses the left where there was no coyote or to the field on the right where there was a coyote. You looked to the right.
Yes, there are multiple paths to that sort of injury. Scenario 3 is another.Scenario two
You left the house for a walk, slipped on wet grass and broke your hip. You could have broken your hip even if there had been no coyote.
The topic is about denial of EPP, not the distinction between direct and indirect realism. On that note, the whole digress about how many causes there are to my injury seems irrelevant to the topic.Why relevant to existance? Do apples exist only in the mind, as the Indirect Realist says, or both in the mind and mind-independent world, as the Direct Realist says?
Fine. For that, we need criteria that must be met for the word 'principle' to apply, and if EPP does not meet this criteria, then we call it a premise or something else.Kant says, all principles need arguments and proof why they are principles. — Corvus
Depends what you mean by perceptible. If it's the anthropocentric definition (perceived by humans), then E2 applies. If it is perceptible by anything, even in the absence of an observer noticing it, then E4 applies. Both definitions are relational, essentially 'is a member of X' where X is human perceptions (E2) or X is 'is somewhere in our universe' (E4) where universe is anything with coordinates relative to say time 0, Greenwich. Dark matter exists despite not being easy to perceive.How about "Existence is perceptible object in space and time"? This must be the defacto definition of existence.
I made little sense of most of the post, but this seems to reference the E4 definition (is a member of our universe), a relation.Existence references the item to the totality. It’s a cataloguing reference to the totality that honors the conservation laws. Matter is neither created nor destroyed. Existing things all come from the same fund of mass_energy and thus are inter-connected all of the time. — ucarr
Definitions are descriptions about how certain words and terms are being used. The latter doesn't have a truth value to it. — noAxioms
That's a different question that 'do apples exist?". — noAxioms
I break my hip (an effect) because 1) I chose to take a walk that day 2) there was a recently repaved road 3) shoulder not properly filled 4) coyote in distant field......................In all my examples, there are multiple causes, each of which is necessary for the effect. — noAxioms
Things existing only in the mind or not is idealism, a valid view but one explicitly not being considered, per the disclaimer in the OP. — noAxioms
How about "Existence is perceptible object in space and time"? This must be the defacto definition of existence.
Depends what you mean by perceptible. If it's the anthropocentric definition (perceived by humans), then E2 applies. If it is perceptible by anything, even in the absence of an observer noticing it, then E4 applies. Both definitions are relational, essentially 'is a member of X' where X is human perceptions (E2) or X is 'is somewhere in our universe' (E4) where universe is anything with coordinates relative to say time 0, Greenwich. Dark matter exists despite not being easy to perceive. — noAxioms
I can think of several definitions of 'exists' that one might use, but some possibilities:
E1 "Is a member of all that is part of objective reality"
E2 "I know about it"
E3 "Has predicates"
E4 "Is part of the objective state of this universe"
E5 "state X exists to state Y iff X is part of the causal history of Y"
E6 "existential quantification", where 51 is not prime because there exists an even divisor that is neither 1 nor 51.
There are probably better wordings. — noAxioms
Fine, write your own, but also tell me in what way it is distinct from E4. Space and time are contained by the universe, and I see little point in listing the contents in the E4 definition.None of the definitions of existence mentions on space and time. — Corvus
That is pretty vague since all it does is give a synonym. 'is real' or 'being'. So 'being real' can also be defined 6 ways, which I had called R1-R6, corresponding to E1-E6.The Merriam Webster defines "exist" as "to have real being whether material or spiritual". — RussellA
Convention (or what you call 'common usage'). If you're going to use the latter definition, it needs to be stated up front because it's unconventional. Likewise, all these philosophers need to do this because your wording doesn't narrow it down to a single one of the possible conventions. This is a philosophical discussion, so a philosophical definition is expected, not a lay definition.But why does "exist" mean "to have real being whether material or spiritual" rather than "a woody perennial plant".
You're describing idealism. The whole point of realism is that there is a real apple independent of mind, the actual nature of which is a matter of interpretation. For instance, absent a mind, there's nothing out there that's going to label it with the symbol 'apple', but absent any minds, said apple would likely have never evolved in the first place, so go figure.For the Indirect Realist, apples only exist in the mind.
No argument from me.My argument is that the Direct Realist position towards non-existence cannot be valid, because Direct Realism itself is not a valid philosophical position, in part because of the problem with causation.
All this seems irrelevant. My effect is a physical effect, not an experience. You're talking about the experience of red. Get away from experience. For at least the 10th time, per the disclaimer, I am not discussing ideals.Specifically, on seeing the colour red, the Indirect Realist accepts that they may not know the cause because one effect may have more than one possible causes. For example, a migraine, a green tree with the light passing through a stained glass window or a yellow field at sunset. The Direct Realist, however, argues that they know the cause was a red colour on the belief that one effect can only have one cause.
How so? You assert only one cause is possible. I list four (with there being more), and you don't counter it. My story contradicts your assertion, which is not 'making your argument for you'.You make my argument for me in saying that one effect, breaking a hip, can have more than one cause, such as taking a walk, a repaved road, a badly repaved road and a coyote.
I am not discussing idealism, and what you call indirect realism is what everybody else calls idealism.Once Direct Realism has been set aside, the Indirect Realist approach to non-existence can be further investigated.
You contradict yourself again, since you claim there is no mind-independent reality under what you call indirect realism, and in so claiming, you claim to know everything about it. "Apples exist only in the mind" you say, so that's a claim that you know everything about mind-independent apples, which is that there aren't any, so there's nothing to know.The Direct Realist believes they can know what exists in a mind-independent world, and the Indirect Realist disagrees.
1) Don't go to a dictionary to answer definition questions from philosophy or science.2) This is a philosophical discussion, so a philosophical definition is expected, not a lay definition. — noAxioms
This entry began by noting that existence raises a number of deep and important problems in metaphysics, philosophy of language, and philosophical logic. The entry has examined some of those problems and surveyed a number of different accounts of existence. None of the theories surveyed is wholly satisfying and without cost.
1) The whole point of realism is that there is a real apple independent of mind, the actual nature of which is a matter of interpretation.2) It seems that any realist (direct or not) presumes something is real, that it exists............What does it mean to have mind independent existence?...............How much is EPP necessary to justify the stance?
3) For at least the 10th time, per the disclaimer, I am not discussing ideals.
4) I am not discussing idealism, and what you call indirect realism is what everybody else calls idealism.
5) You contradict yourself again, since you claim there is no mind-independent reality under what you call indirect realism, and in so claiming, you claim to know everything about it. — noAxioms
1) I break my hip (an effect) because 1) I chose to take a walk that day 2) there was a recently repaved road 3) shoulder not properly filled 4) coyote in distant field...................You assert only one cause is possible. I list four (with there being more), and you don't counter it. — noAxioms
E6 "existential quantification", where 51 is not prime because there exists an even divisor that is neither 1 nor 51. — noAxioms
There does not need to be an agreement as to what a word means. A great deal (perhaps the majority) of words in the dictionary have multiple meanings. Most of the time the intended meaning can be gleaned by context, but where this is not the case, the usage of the word is either ambiguous or is in need of explicit clarification.This leads to an impasse, where a topic is being discussed yet there is no general agreement as to what the words being used mean. — RussellA
But you claim exactly that. "For the Indirect Realist, apples only exist in the mind.". Do clarify this contradiction then.As an Indirect Realist, I don't claim that there is no mind-independent reality"
Since all the other causes (the coyote say) is also caused by the BB, the phrase "one of" implies a sort of redundancy. The BB caused everything in our world, so it's kind of empty (tautological) to identify it as the cause.If there had not been a Big Bang, you wouldn't have broken your hip. It depends whether it is valid to say that the Big Bang was one cause of your breaking your hip?
Yes. E2, E4, E5, E6 all have a domain. E1 is the only one that lacks it, and maybe not even then. Not sure how to classify E3, since it seems to be a self-referential domain.I think that Existential Quantification E6 points to an important feature of "existing", and that is the domain in which something exists.
There you go. All different definitions, all valid, especially since the domain is explcit. It isn't at all explicit in the wording of EPP, which is why that wording of the principle isn't very clear.Integers exist in the domain of numbers, even if integers don't exist in a mind-independent world. Sherlock Holmes exists in the domain of literature, even if Sherlock Holmes is non-existent in a mind-independent world.
Space and time are everywhere in the universe, and nowhere not in the universe, at least in the 4D spacetime model that cosmology uses. There are some naive models that have the universe contained by time, in which case things like big bang and black holes go away, to be replace by some other interpretation. There is no valid model of the universe being contained by space, which is akin to suggesting that the big bang occurred at some specific location and has been expanding into some kind of void since then.Where in the universe, are space and time contained? — Corvus
It was more to hear about your own view on the point.Space and time are everywhere in the universe, and nowhere not in the universe, at least in the 4D spacetime model that cosmology uses. There are some naive models that have the universe contained by time, in which case things like big bang and black holes go away, to be replace by some other interpretation. There is no valid model of the universe being contained by space, which is akin to suggesting that the big bang occurred at some specific location and has been expanding into some kind of void since then. — noAxioms
That sounds a daft statement. The basics of cosmology, and the whole the other subjects are on the internet ChatGPT. We are not asking what is the basic cosmology. We are asking where in the universe, space and time contained. It should be a simple few statement explanation with a coupe of examples. We don't expect to hear on the basics of cosmology the lot here.I cannot explain it much better than that to somebody not familiar with even the basics of cosmology. — noAxioms
It just sounds vague and empty statement, hence more elaboration with detail wouldn't go amiss. What do you mean by "the objective state", "the universe", and does it include space and time? You said space and time are contained in the universe? So, a simple question was, where in the universe are they contained? In what form and nature?E4 "Is part of the objective state of this universe" — noAxioms
Existence references the item to the totality. It’s a cataloguing reference to the totality that honors the conservation laws. Matter is neither created nor destroyed. Existing things all come from the same fund of mass_energy and thus are inter-connected all of the time. — ucarr
I made little sense of most of the post, but this seems to reference the E4 definition (is a member of our universe), a relation. — noAxioms
... everything we think, say, experience and even philosophize about is bounded by context. — philosch
The aforementioned context is the hard, un-analyzable fact of existence. If you ask, "Why do I exist?" the only answer is, "You exist because you do exist." This sounds like non-sensical circularity; it's because existence can only be examined by a thinking sentient, and there can only be thinking if the thinking sentient exists.
You, as a thinking person, have never not existed. Even your thinking about not existing is entirely confined to existing. You can only talk about death as a living person. You've never been dead and you never will be dead. When death becomes an objective reality for you, it won't become an objective reality for you because there won't be any you. Our immersion within existence is weirdly infinite in this way — ucarr
The question seems to ask "what location is distance?" and "when is duration?", both circular. Perhaps you need an example to clarify the question because I have not. The question as you worded it implies that space and time are objects. They're not. They're properties, but so are objects.We are asking where in the universe, space and time contained. — Corvus
Poorly worded on my part. "Objectively part of the universe" would be better. 'state' implies a slice of it, a subset of the whole universe. The universe is not a state.E4 "Is part of the objective state of this universe" — noAxioms
'State' shouldn't be there, especially since a universe does not have a state, but a world at a given moment in time does. One definition is that a thing is present at a moment in time. People exist, dinosaurs don't. That's a reference to state. The universe is all worlds, the entire structure, the initial state of which is what we know as the big bang.What do you mean by "the objective state", "the universe"
Well good. Nobody else seems willing to engage with that issue. E1 was the definition (it's not a premise or any kind of assertion) that was problematic with EPP since EPP was difficult to justify. Perhaps you can attempt to do that, but I really have a hard time parsing your posts. Try to be clear.I'm defending the EPP. My defense stands upon E1 as its premise: "Is a member of all that is part of objective reality" — ucarr
You seem to be speaking of material in this universe (E4, not E1). There is classical conservation laws, but our universe has been proven to not be classical.Everything in existence has been shifted around from some prior, reciprocal existence. When a guy digs a shovel into the dirt, he's got no choice about simultaneously creating a pile of shifted dirt and a corresponding hole of matching dimensions.
I agree with all this. It's called observer bias, and it references a relational definition of existence (E2,4,5,6).If you ask, "Why do I exist?" the only answer is, "You exist because you do exist." This sounds like non-sensical circularity; it's because existence can only be examined by a thinking sentient, and there can only be thinking if the thinking sentient exists.
Excellent leveraging of EPP. Denial of that statement is a subtle denial of EPP. But you also have to explain why it is still meaningful to say "Isaac Newton is dead".You've never been dead and you never will be dead.
This is a contradiction. If it's 'for you', it isn't objective.When death becomes an objective reality for you
This is the sort of poetry that I cannot parse.A notification of orientation to the void the red apple can never transcend, "You will be assimilated resistance is futile." The red apple is the local part; the void is the non-local part. The void seems not to be paired with the red apple because that's the nature of a void. Why death? Because life costs something. What does life cost? It costs the expenditure of energy allowing you to swim above the waves of the void, for a while. Eventually, however, we must be ourselves. We are the void.
Not bad... But EPP principle, as typically phrased, uses the word without definition which meaning is being used.You actually exist because we as beings, capable of language, have defined a word "exist" to mean what ever it's definition is. — philosch
Sounds like meor I could have said everything is relative
The OP is about existence prior to predicate, and existence is closely linked to space and time in some of the definitions, hence we were trying to clarify existence in space and time definition.The question seems to ask "what location is distance?" and "when is duration?", both circular. — noAxioms
Some folks seem to think space and time are objects, and exist as real entity. But I am not sure if that is the case. I am more into the idea that space and time is emergent quality from movements of the objects in perception, as in the other thread running at the moment.The question as you worded it implies that space and time are objects. They're not. They're properties, but so are objects. — noAxioms
I went to ChatGPT, and it was actually quite good. It seems to be getting better all the time. It was quite different in response since my last visit a few months ago. For getting the basics of any topics or subjects, ChatGPT seems quite capable in providing good information.And chatbots are notorious for wrong answers when it comes to cosmology. — noAxioms
But you claim exactly that. "For the Indirect Realist, apples only exist in the mind.". Do clarify this contradiction then. — noAxioms
Tell me why my example is wrong, that nothing on my list caused my injury. — noAxioms
Yes. E2, E4, E5, E6 all have a domain. E1 is the only one that lacks it, and maybe not even then. Not sure how to classify E3, since it seems to be a self-referential domain. — noAxioms
'State' shouldn't be there, especially since a universe does not have a state, but a world at a given moment in time does. One definition is that a thing is present at a moment in time. People exist, dinosaurs don't. That's a reference to state. The universe is all worlds, the entire structure, the initial state of which is what we know as the big bang. — noAxioms
E1 was the definition (it's not a premise or any kind of assertion) that was problematic with EPP since EPP was difficult to justify. — noAxioms
Perhaps you can attempt to do that, but I really have a hard time parsing your posts. Try to be clear. Nowhere in your post do I see EPP justified given an E1 definition, mostly because you never reference E1 at all. — noAxioms
The aforementioned context is the hard, un-analyzable fact of existence. If you ask, "Why do I exist?" the only answer is, "You exist because you do exist." This sounds like non-sensical circularity; it's because existence can only be examined by a thinking sentient, and there can only be thinking if the thinking sentient exists.
You, as a thinking person, have never not existed. Even your thinking about not existing is entirely confined to existing. You can only talk about death as a living person. You've never been dead and you never will be dead. When death becomes an objective reality for you, it won't become an objective reality for you because there won't be any you. Our immersion within existence is weirdly infinite in this way — ucarr
I partly agree and disagree. I think you are playing semantic gymnastics. Saying you exist because you exist is definitely just circular reasoning (Self referential). You actually exist because we as beings, capable of language, have defined a word "exist" to mean what ever it's definition is. There is no absolute meaning. There's only the meaning of the word in the context of our human language and shared experience. I could have just as easily said there is no objective reality, only subjective reality, or I could have said everything is relative, or nothing can be understood outside of it's relationship to other things which we have also defined. Those statements are all getting at the same thing. If there is an objective reality we can never perceive or realize it because we are completely bounded by our own senses including our consciousness. Our personal reality is completely bounded by our own subjective experience. It's locked in that context and cannot escape it. That's what my original statement was getting at. — philosch
... everything we think, say, experience and even philosophize about is bounded by context. — philosch
Saying you can only talk about death as a living person is also obvious and trivial. Of course it's true because a dead person can't talk about anything. You we never dead is true but you were non-existent as a living conscious being before you were conceived and you will be non-existent as a conscious living being after you die because of the definition of "exist" and "death". You might say that your atoms existed in different forms before your being existed and that would be true and the atoms that make up your body may continue to exist after you die but they are not a conscious living human being by definition. Now you can try to alter or impart other meanings onto words or shift contexts mid statement, but that violates the rules of language. I call this semantic gymnastics which arm chair philosophers do all the time to try and prove some profound truth they think they have discovered. — philosch
"when death becomes an objective reality for you it won't become an objective reality for you because there won't be any you" is of the form; When A (death) becomes B(an objective reality) of (-) C (you), A won't become a B - C because C no longer exists. That is not quite correct. B in this argument, is dependent on C by definition. Remove C and of course B ceases as well. So A becomes the B-C for an instant and then C and B-C or now non-existent. So what, it's trivial. — philosch
If there is an objective reality we can never perceive or realize it because we are completely bounded by our own senses including our consciousness. — philosch
B in this argument, is dependent on C by definition. Remove C and of course B ceases as well. — philosch
A, in the context of a given C is by definition the "end" of that C and anything dependent on that C. — philosch
Death is the ending of life which is what you are really calling existence. — philosch
When you say "our" immersion within existence is weirdly infinite, this depends on the "our" that you are talking about.If you are referring to our conscious living state then you are wrong by definition.
— philosch
If there is an objective reality we can never perceive or realize it because we are completely bounded by our own senses including our consciousness. Our personal reality is completely bounded by our own subjective experience. — philosch
If you are referring to our conscious living state then you are wrong by definition. — philosch
You mean the "ontology of time" topic. I didn't post to that since time was not defined clearly. I can think of three obvious definitions and yea, some of them exist (depends on definition of 'exists' of course), and some don't. Two of the three can be perceived, including the one I consider nonexistent.I am more into the idea that space and time is emergent quality from movements of the objects in perception, as in the other thread running at the moment. — Corvus
That doesn't mean there's no apple. It just means that we don't know the true nature of the apple. Common referent (the fact that more than one mind can experience the object) is solid evidence that it is there in some form. You can deny the common referent, but that becomes solipsism.Because of the asymmetric flow of information in a causal chain between a thing-in-itself in a mind-independent world and the experiences in our senses, we can never know the true nature of any thing-in-itself. — RussellA
Sure you can. You just don't know the full nature of it. That doesn't stop anybody from applying the label or otherwise discussing the thing and not discussing only our concept of it. If you cannot do that, then your idealistic inclinations prevent communication on topics like this.I can say that the thing-in-itself is an apple, but that is not to say that in reality the thing-in-itself is an apple.
So you agree that there are at least four causes to my injury? If not, which ones are not? If you cannot, then your single-cause assertion is falsified by counterexample.I agree that choosing to walk, a recently repaved road, a shoulder not properly filled and a coyote in a distant field all inexorably lead to your breaking your hip. — RussellA
Yes. The domain is objective in that one.E1 - "exists" may be defined as "is a member of all that is part of objective reality" — RussellA
E2There is the domain of being within the mind
E4and there is the domain of being within a mind-independent world.
Unicorn then as well, and even square circle, all existent by E3. Meinong certainly does not use E3 as his existence definition.A horse exists because it has the property of being four legged, being maned, being hoofed, etc. In Meinong's term "exist"
If you consider time to be an object, then it is up to you to point to where it might be. I don't, so the question makes no sense. Start off by defining time, something you didn't do in your own topic about it.You see the objects and objects in movements, changes and motions, but where is time? — Corvus
A definition takes the form "I am using the word 'X' to mean such and such in some context". A premise takes the form "X is being presumed here to be the case".Do you believe a definition cannot be used as a premise? If not, why not? — ucarr
That would be great. Nobody else has tried. You're saying that if definition E1 is used (I think Meinong is using it), then EPP must be the case, something Meinong denies.Consider: I will use E1 to develop a chain of reasoning that evaluates to a conclusion negating the possibility of predication standing independent from existence. — ucarr
By 'eternal', do you mean unbounded time (everlasting), or do you mean that time is part of the universe (eternalism)? Either way, it is uncaused. If it's caused, we're not including the entire universe, just part of it.Eternal universe uncaused is my starting point. — ucarr
That's begging your conclusion. You need to justify it, not just assert it.I equate it with existence.
It isn't objective if it is confined to being public, repeatable, measureable. That's an empirical definition (E2). It exists relative to an observer. Putting the word 'objective' into a subjective description does not make it objective.I equate existence with objectifiable reality (public, repeatable, measurable).
But then you go and describe a subjective reality. As far as I can tell, there is no test for something objectively existing or not objectively existing. Any test would be a relational test, a subjective one.I read E1 as, "Existence is a part of all parts of objective reality."
There is neither beginning nor ending of existence. For this reason, no life ever knows death. Why do we not fully know either the world or ourselves; eternity cannot be analyzed whole. — ucarr
then you're in no position to make your supporting claim for your argument:
B in this argument, is dependent on C by definition. Remove C and of course B ceases as well.
— philosch
A, in the context of a given C is by definition the "end" of that C and anything dependent on that C.
— philosch
You over generalize; children's lives are contingent upon their parents, whether dead or alive. This gets at my main theme: no existing thing is alone. This especially true of children who, without their ancestors, would scarcely know themselves. The general fund of existence: mass, matter, energy, space, and time have total reach WRT all existing things. — ucarr
You over generalize; children's lives are contingent upon their parents, whether dead or alive. This gets at my main theme: no existing thing is alone. This especially true of children who, without their ancestors, would scarcely know themselves. — ucarr
You mean the "ontology of time" topic. I didn't post to that since time was not defined clearly. — noAxioms
That doesn't mean there's no apple. It just means that we don't know the true nature of the apple. Common referent (the fact that more than one mind can experience the object) is solid evidence that it is there in some form. You can deny the common referent, but that becomes solipsism. — noAxioms
So you agree that there are at least four causes to my injury? — noAxioms
You talk endlessly about indirect realism and information flow, but not how any of that leads to a conclusion of the necessity of a single cause for any effect. — noAxioms
The question never gets answered. If EPP holds, how is EPP justified? If it doesn't hold, how do we know the horse exists? How does Meinong (somebody known to deny EPP) justify the horse as being in a different domain than the unicorn? — noAxioms
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.