Do you believe a definition cannot be used as a premise? If not, why not? — ucarr

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". — noAxioms

I suppose with some careful wording, a statement can be used as either. The closest example I could think of was the fallacy of using a definition as a premise (actually as a conclusion), resulting in Anselm's ontological argument.
Give me an example of a definition being used as a premise. — noAxioms

In your two descriptions, respectively, of "definition" and of "premise," you example something taking a form by force of an axiomatic assumption without evaluation to a reasoned conclusion. This is an argument they are non-identical yet interchangeable. Example: You can't dig up earth without creating a pile of earth and a hole that shake hands symmetrically. This is my definition of symmetry, i.e., transformation without net change. It's also my premise for reasoning to the conclusion that matter is neither created nor destroyed. In the case of digging up the earth, the net change is re-arrangement of matter at zero change due to the material pile and the material space it created being summed to zero.

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

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. — noAxioms

Material things vis-á-vis existence describes a part/whole relationship. Existence indexes physics in that it supervenes as context into all material things, both concrete and abstract. Existence as supervenient context establishes all real things in relationship to each other. I don't expect anyone to claim they can name something both real and non-existent.

You can't name an attribute of a thing without simultaneously indexing it within the quintet: mass, matter, energy, space, and time.

Insuperability serves as an index of the eternal reach of existence.

Existence is eternal and nothing is prior to an eternal thing. An emergent property is a derivative, so the fund of that property, the quintet, exists prior to it. The fund of a potential thing is that thing's necessary prior condition.

Eternal universe uncaused is my starting point. — 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. — noAxioms

Time is part of existence, as is the universe. Existence is the largest largest container; it is insuperable to all that lies within it. The insuperability is so extreme that occupants of existence can't fathom non-existence beyond positing it as a limit of existence.

Eternal universe existence uncaused is my starting point. I equate it with existence. I equate connect existence with objectifiable reality (public, repeatable, measurable). There is an oscillation between "to experience (subject)" and "to measure (object)."

The measurement problem of QM might be related to subject/object entanglement, and it might example a bi-conditional relationship between subject/object such that a complex grayscale region of the two inter-mingled perplexes simple, binary notions of subject/object. This relates to the insuperability of existence from the standpoint of observation_measurement not being possible without inter-subjective_inter-objective entanglement.

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. — noAxioms

The subject/object duet is not divisible. Where there is subject there is object. If we examine subjectivity without objectivity, what do we have? The answer is solipsism.* If we have objectivity without subjectivity, what do we have? The answer is Kant's noumena. In separation, the two modes become lighthouses of eternal isolation. Be of good cheer, no existing thing is truly isolated.

*Even with the assumption of solipsism, we still can't avoid the self as both subject and object of itself.

The alternative to the subject/object duet is neither, but that entails non-existence. There is no non-existence. Given the indivisibility of the subject/object duet, we see the problem of the search for an origin story in cosmology. There is the insoluble problem of point-or-view. If you're trapped within a container - existence is an insuperable context-as-ecology-of-physics - you can't observe it as a whole because that demands you be greater than yourself. This, in turn, tells us that every sentient being comprises the entirety of existence by means of consciousness. What happens when consciousness, the uncontainable agent meets existence, the inescapable container?

I read E1 as, "Existence is a part of all parts of objective reality." — ucarr

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. — noAxioms

In this statement, you bolster my claim: the subject/object duet is not divisible. Moreover, you sign on to the index function of the quintet, the scaffold of existence.

Death is the ending of life which is what you are really calling existence. — philosch

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

The above quote is wrong (logically invalid) if you stick with the generally accepted meanings of words. You are by syllogism, inferring that "existence" and "life" are interchangeable and that "death" and "non-existence" are also interchangeable, and they are not synonymous. Your first premise, "there is no beginning nor ending of existence" is actually interesting and worthy of the philosophical debate. I'm not sure what my position is on that premise but it's certainly interesting. Your conclusion is "for this reason, no life ever knows death", simply does not follow from the first premise unless you hold "being alive" as equal to "existing". They are not the same thing without bending the rules of language. Your above argument or assertion is of the form... — philosch

Sticking with the accepted meaning of words is one of the things writing and talking is specifically allowed to refuse to do. The reason we of our generation don't sound much like those of Shakespeare's generation is the fact that language is a practice alive with continual variation and invention. Life demands continuous adjustment, and language, more often than, not obliges.

Life and existence are distinct but not disjunct. Consider the Venn diagram linking two different domains by their common ground. I don't expect anyone to claim a living being non-existent. I don't expect anyone to claim a bottle of beer and the man drinking it interchangeable. No, life and existence are not interchangeable, and I'm not suggesting they are. You, philosch, have always been alive, and you've never been dead. How is that not eternity, bounded yes, but eternity nonetheless? The quintet of mass, matter, energy, space, and time, the fundamentals that fund your existence, index you to eternity, the only thing that can create life. It has your back, and will never let you go. Just as you warn me not to make the mistake of confusing myself with it, I warn you not to make the mistake of divesting yourself from it.

It's not necessary to equate life with existence. Rather, it's useful to perceive that life will not persist outside of existence. Life, by its nature, bends the rules as life will not be understood. Rules applied to life populate morals, but life transcends morals. Does life transcend logic? Life transcends present logic. In the presence of living things, there's always an unseen window of nascent possibility nuancing present logic towards a better tomorrow. Synkismetricity (synchronicity+kismet).

Premise 1. "A" has no beginning and no end
Conclusion: From premise 1 (for that reason) "B" never knows "C".

Where;
A = existence
B = Life or being alive (either definition works)
C = Death or the end of A, (either definition works)

It's not valid logic period. The conclusion clearly does not follow from the premise. — philosch

I oppose your interpretation which posits: ¬A=C. The quintet indexes you to the source eternal and therefore ¬A≠C. Our lives emerge from existence general into individuality for a period of time, then return to it. Information is never destroyed, so existence general preserves your individuality.

That B never knows C is not due to non-existence, but rather due to the bounded infinity of individualized life. The banishment of death is life inviting you to plight your trust with the uncontainable. What happens when the uncontainable, your consciousness, meets the insuperable, your existence? Nature happens.

That B never knows C is not due to non-existence, but rather due to the bounded infinity of individualized life. — ucarr

Na, I don't buy anything you say here. Bounded infinity doesn't make any sense at all, it's not infinity if it is bounded....again by definition.

Individualized life? Again just some words strung together in poetic fashion. Writing and speaking do not specifically enjoin you to alter the common words of language to suit your own sensibilities unless you are writing or speaking poetically, in which case anything goes. Philosophical and scientific writing and argumentation and debate demand the coherence of accepted meanings to allow for meaningful information exchange.

I'm going to assert; "No light bulb ever knows darkness". Um, I can play around with this statement but ultimately it's of little use. It becomes nothing but an exercise in semantic gymnastics. It is poetically useful and that's it. I believe that is what is driving your writing.

You, philosch, have always been alive, and you've never been dead. — ucarr

Again this may be poetic but it's not true rationally. Normal, logical, philosophical discussion and argument demand a consensus, a shared or agreed upon set of definitions. I was not "alive" 400 years ago. If you want to change the definition of what "always" means or what "alive" means then feel free, that's all you've been doing in your arguments......mixing, fuzzing and altering definitions in a poetic way to make grandiose un-provable assertions which is not philosophy.

Your understanding of the conservation of information is un-informed. The notion that your individuality is preserved is a gross misunderstanding of that law. It's quantum information that is theoretically preserved in that law, not macro scale emergent properties such as consciousness and memory. You may pose some other theory about the preservation of consciousness after death but the conservation of information that has been proposed as a physical law does NOT do it.

You had to have added the following second premise; A = B and C = end of A

You now get:
P1 - A has no beginning or end
P2 - A = B
Conclusion : B has no end (C)

The second premise makes the logic valid but that just render's the conclusion as a partial restatement of the first premise using different labels and it is trivial. However without the second premise the logic is invalid so the conclusion is false. A does not equal B without altering standard, accepted meanings. — philosch

Instead, I get:
A=Existence
B=Life
C=Death
A → ((∞B)∧C)

As far as what we know empirically, we only experience life without beginning or end. We see others born and dead, and we correctly believe these two states apply to us, but we never experience either.

Existence is defined as the quality of being real. Life or living things exist, but so do things that are not alive. Now you might get cute and start question whether or not a rock is alive or real but that's just playing with generally accepted meanings. Also by definition, life is a distinct quality of organic matter and the organic "things" that possess that quality, clearly lose that quality upon death, so "a" life has an end. Take a human being as something that exists. It's aliveness had a beginning and it has an end. The body still exists after the quality of life has ended, as long as standard definitions are being adhered to. Your above quote is in error. — philosch

Consider: a bounded set can include the cardinality of the entire set of real numbers. This is a bounded infinity. Your life is a bounded infinity. It has no beginning and no ending. The life in you was never non-life. The seed and the egg must be alive, or no baby. All of your forebears were alive unto their passing of their living seed forward towards your life never begun and never ended. Life infinite is what existence infinite imparts to your contingent individualizing attributes marking your individuality. Understand your life, young-to-old, is a navigation of the parameters of a bounded infinity of total life. There is no entrance into life from non-life, and no return of life to non-life.

This is the essence of my objection to your arguments. Words matter and the rules of logic matter. If we start letting the accepted meanings of words become malleable or squishy then we get malleable or squishy philosophy. — philosch

The view forward is sharp with hailstones and lusty wind. About face without scanning the looking glass backwards.

As far as being a solipsist, I am not. The assertion that the only thing we can be certain exists is our own consciousness has not been proven. I don't support that position even theoretically. IMO, everything you perceive through your senses is real by definition, including your consciousness meaning everything your perceive exists. I simply stated in so many words that you can only experience a subjective reality, your perspective or context limits you from experiencing (absolute) objective reality. I'm not stating whether objective reality exists or not, only that you cannot experience it if it does, because your conscious experience is filtered through your senses. I can say unequivocally that a rock exists but I cannot "know" the object state of the rock's reality, I can only know the subjective reality of the rock that I experience. — philosch

You have an understanding that puts "subjective" brackets around knowledge. Why do you not put these same brackets around your birth and your death? By your own words, you cannot know the "(absolute) objective reality" of their presence. What do you know about them? You know what you experience empirically which, by your discreteness, seals you off from "(absolute) objective reality" of their presence. Through your senses, you never saw yourself non-living before birth. You can imagine it now by definition of words in abstraction. You will not see yourself non-living after death; you might see your death approaching, but you will be alive while doing so.

You have an understanding that puts "subjective" brackets around knowledge. Why do you not put these same brackets around your birth and your death? By your own words, you cannot know the "(absolute) objective reality" of their presence. — ucarr

Well now that is true. I stand by the fact you cannot know anything for absolute. I have held dear friends as they took their last breath and all I can say with absolute certainty is they are no longer present in my subjective reality. Something has dramatically been lost or changed state. We collectively call that transformation death. It is real in so far as anything else I can know is real. No amount of conjecture changes that level of real experience. The rest is the poetry of our collective reality, never to be fully grasped or understood, as I've stated, we cannot escape the limitations of our context. (Not withstanding any altered states of consciousness of which just deepens the conjecture and mystery that we are.) But these statements do not invalidate the practical aspects of reality, birth and death and so forth.

"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

The crux of your argument is the equation of B: objective reality with C: human cognition rendered through language. If, as you've been arguing:

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

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.

I didn't over generalize anything. I specifically stated if the existence of a thing is dependent on the existence of something else and the first thing ceases to exist, then by the rules of logic so des the existence of the dependent thing. In this context of the argument you setup, the dependence is absolute. — philosch

This argument is predicated upon B (Objective Reality) = C (You). You say, as I quote you above, objective reality is inaccessible to perception. Your "If/then" correlative conjunction makes your conclusion analytically true by definition. In our present context, however, we're examining empirical experience as it applies to A, B, and C.

Your "If/then" correlative conjunction makes your conclusion analytically true by definition. In our present context, however, we're examining empirical experience as it applies to A, B, and C. We’re not examining exercise of pure reason wherein observation of material events is unnecessary.

The language field of pure reason can practice your logic inside a shuttered room. Our debate, in contrast, has its focus on what we see and understand about ourselves while active in the social world. I apply your cognition boundaries of language to the social world while you apply it to the formalisms of abstract logic. In consequence of this, you bring an apples argument to an oranges claim, and I bring an oranges argument to an apples claim.

You might counter that logic is the same everywhere, and I can then counter with my math logic pertaining to bounded infinities.

When death becomes an objective reality for you, it won't become an objective reality for you because there won't be any you. — ucarr

The dependence of a child's life on it's parent's life is a non sequitur as existence and being alive are not the same thing as I previously argued and a child's existence is not absolutely dependent on the parents continued existence. It's a different argument altogether. — philosch

I doubt you don't fully believe your cognition has its entire grounding in socially-supported definitions of words. The report of your senses, sans words, tells you when an independently real corpse lowers into the ground. As you say, "...existence and being alive are not the same thing..." This equation you ascribe to my words, but I don't agree they state or imply that. The existence of your corpse will be a remnant that is not you, and thus we know you will not see your own corpse. I've been saying this from the start, so you can reason from my words that I've never equated existence with life.

Both arguments focus on contingent things. Both arguments focus on a Venn diagram of common ground connecting two distinct things. This common ground - in the instance of a child, genetic inheritance - continues to shape the path forward of the contingent thing. The conclusion to equivalence is your evaluation, not mine. Ignoring that, the sanctity of life goes forward for the life-in-the-child of the foreseeing parent, and also for the remembering child looking back to its family roots.

That B never knows C is not due to non-existence, but rather due to the bounded infinity of individualized life. — ucarr

Na, I don't buy anything you say here. Bounded infinity doesn't make any sense at all, it's not infinity if it is bounded....again by definition. — philosch

If you're willing to enter "bounded infinity" into the Google Search Engine, you can start learning about it. Take for example: {0,1} This bounded infinity accommodates an unlimited number of values between 0 and 1, the boundaries of the infinite series.

Individualized life? Again just some words strung together in poetic fashion. Writing and speaking do not specifically enjoin you to alter the common words of language to suit your own sensibilities unless you are writing or speaking poetically, in which case anything goes. Philosophical and scientific writing and argumentation and debate demand the coherence of accepted meanings to allow for meaningful information exchange. — philosch

When Einstein's associate Minkowski coined the word "spacetime," he gave the world a easy label for The Theory of Relativity. Do you approve of the word?

I'm going to assert; "No light bulb ever knows darkness". Um, I can play around with this statement but ultimately it's of little use. It becomes nothing but an exercise in semantic gymnastics. It is poetically useful and that's it. I believe that is what is driving your writing. — philosch

Do you read poetry?

Again this may be poetic but it's not true rationally. Normal, logical, philosophical discussion and argument demand a consensus, a shared or agreed upon set of definitions. I was not "alive" 400 years ago. If you want to change the definition of what "always" means or what "alive" means then feel free, that's all you've been doing in your arguments......mixing, fuzzing and altering definitions in a poetic way to make grandiose un-provable assertions which is not philosophy. — philosch

You've stayed in this conversation in order to teach me things?

Your understanding of the conservation of information is un-informed. The notion that your individuality is preserved is a gross misunderstanding of that law. It's quantum information that is theoretically preserved in that law, not macro scale emergent properties such as consciousness and memory. You may pose some other theory about the preservation of consciousness after death but the conservation of information that has been proposed as a physical law does NOT do it. — philosch

Do you think the sub-atomics of atoms in humans are categorically different from the sub-atomics of atoms in stars?

You have an understanding that puts "subjective" brackets around knowledge. Why do you not put these same brackets around your birth and your death? By your own words, you cannot know the "(absolute) objective reality" of their presence. — ucarr

Well now that is true. I stand by the fact you cannot know anything for absolute. I have held dear friends as they took their last breath and all I can say with absolute certainty is they are no longer present in my subjective reality. Something has dramatically been lost or changed state. We collectively call that transformation death. It is real in so far as anything else I can know is real. No amount of conjecture changes that level of real experience. The rest is the poetry of our collective reality, never to be fully grasped or understood, as I've stated, we cannot escape the limitations of our context. (Not withstanding any altered states of consciousness of which just deepens the conjecture and mystery that we are.) But these statements do not invalidate the practical aspects of reality, birth and death and so forth. — philosch

:up:

Empirical Experience Vs Pure Logic

Your partition between the two modes: a) pure logic; b) empirical experience presents artificial. The same pure logic – your stock in trade – applies in both situations. Logically speaking, if your parents cease to exist, you cease to exist. That’s the logical truth of a child being contingent upon their parent. Do you see that this is more evidence that we are neither born nor eventually become dead. With pure logic symbols on paper, we say that if B is contingent upon A, then destruction of A logically demands destruction of B.

Empirical experience is different from pure logic because when a parent leaves human form, they do not cease to exist. Instead, the parent changes form from individualized person to general stock in the quintet (mass, matter, motion, space, and time) funding general existence. Human individuals are emergent from this fund.

Since the parent A does not cease to exist, the contingent child B also does not cease to exist, even after the parent A changes form from individualized human back to the general stock of the quintet.

The fallacy obscuring the bounded infinity of human existence eternal is that we are born and eventually become dead. No. We emerge from the eternal change of form into the individualization of personhood for an interval of time, then we change form back into the general stock of existence eternal.

Existence is defined as the quality of being real. — philosch

That's just giving a synonym, pretty vague if 'being real' is not subsequently defined.
I called my 6 definitions of 'real' R1-R6 corresponding to my 6 definitions of exists E1-E6.

The OP [of the Ontology of time topic] started with little assumption and open mindedness on the definitions, because it is known to be historically abstract and contentious topic. It was looking for good arguments from different angles for exploration, which could offer us better understanding on the concept of time, and possible solid definitions and conclusions. — Corvus

I still don't know what kind of time is asserted to not exist.

It is a logical contradiction to say that we don't know the true nature of the apple, but we do we know that the true nature of the thing-in-itself is an apple. — RussellA

It would indeed be contradictory.

For example, suppose the true nature of a thing-in-itself is being green, but this thing-in-itself has been labelled pink.

Those are mental perceptions, hardly qualities of the apple itself. The only quality of the apple I'm interested in is whether or not it exists, and which definition of exists is being used when justifying the assessment one way or another.

When walking on wet gravel looking at a coyote, you slip. Simplifying the situation, you walk on gravel and slip. What is the cause of your slipping?

Walking and not gravel - don't slip
Walking and gravel - slip
Not walking and not gravel - don't slip
Not walking and gravel - don't slip

Again you discard my scenario. But you still have two causes: walking and gravel. Likewise, my injury would not have occurred had any of the four causes not have happened. So again you seem to argue support of multiple causes, but denying it all the same.

OK, so you label (cause1 & cause2) as a single cause. That's our disconnect. You reject gravel being a cause despite slipping not taking place in the absence of gravel, and also you cannot know the cause of anything since you don't know the entire list.
Crazy definitions, but at least the disconnect was identified.

Backwards in time, a single effect has more than one possible cause. For example, knowing the positions of the snooker balls on a snooker table gives no knowledge about the positions of the snooker balls on the snooker table at a prior time.

This presumes an epistemic definition of cause, not a metaphysical one.

Q1 The EPP principle is that there cannot be properties without being attached to something existing. How is this principle justified
— RussellA

The Indirect Realist perceives a set of properties in the mind, such as being four legged, being maned, being hoofed, etc.

This is true of far more than just indirect realism, and is also true of both horses and unicorns. Just saying.
The indirect realism is also already a realist of a kind. Starting on that foot seems to already beg a conclusion of which a justification was requested. That's the problem with 'beliefs' instead of reaching the conclusion without ungrounded premises.
All that said, identifying as a kind of realist doesn't define what is meant by 'real'. What is real? In what way is it real (R1-R6)? Some of those definitions have empirical backing and some don't.

The Indirect Realist believes that there is a thing-in-itself existing in a mind-independent world

OK, the bold bit seems to be a reference to either E4. If it was E2, it wouldn't be mind independent. 'world' indicates at least a portion of our universe.
You claim this indirect realist knows nothing about the thing, and yet he holds a belief that it exists in this way. Isn't that irrational? Is the belief just a matter of faith then? I mean, you can count =the apples there on the table, and so can somebody else (common referent), so it's not just a dream. Looks like evidence of EPP (E4) to me. Sounds like an absence of knowing nothing about them.
I can count the horses and the number agrees with the number you count, but the same cannot be done with unicorns. That makes the unicorns distinct by the E2 definition. Not so much by the E4 definition since I've not empirical access to the entire world.

Q2 If there can be properties in the absence of something existing, how do we know that horses exist?

You don't answer this one. You talk about indirect realists, but the question is not addressed. The question as worded is similar to Q3, especially if E4 is used.

Q3 If there can be properties in the absence of something existing, how do we know that horses are in a different domain to unicorns

The Indirect Realist may consistently perceive in their mind the constant conjunction of the set of properties being four legged, being maned, being hoofed, not being horned, not only being in a book, etc. They can then attach the mental concept "horse" to this set of properties.

They may also consistently perceive in their mind the constant conjunction of the set of properties being four legged, being maned, being hoofed, being horned, only being in a book, etc. They can then attach the mental concept "unicorn" to this set of properties.

Short story, by switching to definition E2. I mean, what other evidence is there that unicorns appear nowhere but in a book?


I'm not tearing apart your argument, but rather pointing out that almost everybody uses definition E2 when the say 'exists', but then convince themselves that some other definition must also be the case. I'm not arguing against the fact that we see horses and we don't see unicorns, but that is just a relation between people and the things we say exist. It is completely anthropocentric reasoning, but then somewhere we declare, quite unreasonably, that these distinctions are objective.

Example: You can't dig up earth without creating a pile of earth and a hole that shake hands symmetrically. — ucarr

This is not an example of a definition. If I didn't know the meaning of the word 'symmetrical', I would not know how to use the word after reading that.

This is my definition of symmetry, i.e., transformation without net change.

That wording sounds more like a definition, even if it's not one that is in any dictionary. But that one is not worded as a premise.

Material things vis-á-vis existence describes a part/whole relationship. Existence indexes physics in that it supervenes as context into all material things

This is not E1 at all. It seems to suggest that a thing exists if it is material. A unicorn exists, but distance does not.

Eternal universe existence uncaused is my starting point.

You start by presuming your conclusion directly? It is not going to in any way justify how we know what exists or not if you presume the list right up front rather than conclude it by some logic and/or evidence.

I still don't know what kind of time is asserted to not exist. — noAxioms

What does Meinong say about the existence of time?

What does Meinong say about the existence of time? — Corvus

Why would he mention that explicitly? He published his stuff before modern physics even gave us words for the three kinds of time, and even you don't know which kind of time you're denying despite not having that excuse.

There are lots of you-tubes claiming time doesn't exist, but I don't watch links whose arguments are not summarized by the posters, so I don't know what they're denying or how they go about it.

Why would he mention that explicitly? — noAxioms

Why not? Even the ancient Greek folks mentioned on the existence of time.

even you don't know which kind of time you're denying despite not having that excuse. — noAxioms

When did I say I denied anything? I have been just asking questions to various folks for their opinions and ideas, so I could compare them in order to learn more about it.

There are lots of you-tubes claiming time doesn't exist, but I don't watch links whose arguments are not summarized by the posters, so I don't know what they're denying or how they go about it. — noAxioms

Well, you need to have listens to, think and learn about them rather than just be narrowminded and trying to twist everything said.

Even the ancient Greek folks mentioned on the existence of time. — Corvus

But they also didn't know about the three kinds.

I have been just asking questions to various folks for their opinions and ideas, so I could compare them in order to learn more about it.

That's good. What was learned? I did peek at the tail of your topic when you mentioned it. Why post links to all those time-denial videos? Do you understand any of their arguments? Do you agree? None of that was posted, so all I can presume is that you're using them to promote an opinion of denying it, without even knowing which kind is being denied. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's usually why people post links like that without discussion of them.

Well, you need to have listens to, think and learn about them rather than just be narrowminded and trying to twist everything said.

I don't because I didn't participate in that topic, and this one isn't about time specifically, especially when 'exists' has not been defined when asking if any particular thing exists or not. This topic is about the necessity of doing that, and the justifications or lack of them for the various definitions.

I don't because I didn't participate in that topic, and this one isn't about time specifically, especially when 'exists' has not been defined when asking if any particular thing exists or not. This topic is about the necessity of doing that, and the justifications or lack of them for the various definitions. — noAxioms

Fair enough. Existence seems to be an ambiguous concept. X exists, can mean many different things. X doesn't exist, doesn't mean X is denied.

Time doesn't exist, doesn't mean time is denied. It could mean we don't perceive time, or time could be a priori condition for our perception of external world ... etc. Present exists, but it disappears before we notice it. Past exists in our memories only. There were some folks who confuse the archive of events or objects as pasts, and some words denoting future as future itself. That's daft.

Time flows to the future. In this statement, time is an existence, flows is a copula and future is the predicate. This is an example statement of EPP.

Likewise, my injury would not have occurred had any of the four causes not have happened. — noAxioms

You are proposing Overdetermination, which is philosophically problematic. A solution to the Overdetermination problem would make a good PhD thesis.

From the Wikipedia article on Overdetermination

Overdetermination occurs when a single-observed effect is determined by multiple causes, any one of which alone would be conceivably sufficient to account for ("determine") the effect.
There are many problems of overdetermination. First, overdetermination is problematic from the viewpoint of a standard counterfactual understanding of causation, according to which an event is the cause of another event if and only if the latter would not have occurred, had the former not occurred.
Second, overdetermination is problematic in that we do not know how to explain where the extra causation "comes from" and "goes". This makes overdetermination mysterious.

You claim this indirect realist knows nothing about the thing, and yet he holds a belief that it exists in this way. Isn't that irrational? Is the belief just a matter of faith then?...........................All that said, identifying as a kind of realist doesn't define what is meant by 'real'. What is real? In what way is it real (R1-R6)? Some of those definitions have empirical backing and some don't. — noAxioms

Knowledge is justified true belief. As an Indirect Realist, I believe that things exist in a mind-independent world and I can justify my belief. But as my belief may or may not be true, I cannot call it knowledge.

Yes, my belief that there are things in a mind-independent world is in a sense a matter of faith, as a religious person's belief in a god is a matter of faith, but that doesn't mean it is irrational.

On the other hand, I know my perceptions of colour, smell, taste, etc, which are not matters of either belief or faith.

I know that my perceptions are real, and believe that there are things in a mind-independent world that are also real.

Generally, "real" and "exist" are synonyms, though there is nothing to stop anyone from redefining them.

This presumes an epistemic definition of cause, not a metaphysical one. — noAxioms

I see a broken window and can imagine several possible causes, but don't know the actual cause. A detective visits the scene of a crime and can imagine several possible causes, but doesn't know the actual cause.

As an Indirect Realist, I see the colour green and can imagine several possible causes, but don't know the actual cause. The Direct Realist, on seeing the colour green knows that green was the actual cause.

For the Indirect Realist, epistemology limits metaphysical knowledge. For the Direct Realist, their metaphysical knowledge is not epistemologically limited.

The only quality of the apple I'm interested in is whether or not it exists, and which definition of exists is being used when justifying the assessment one way or another...................................almost everybody uses definition E2 when the say 'exists', but then convince themselves that some other definition must also be the case. — noAxioms

There are three theories of perception, Idealism, Direct Realism and Indirect Realism.

I don't think that either Idealism or Direct Realism are philosophically valid. Therefore, the question of the definition of "exist" must of necessity be considered from the position of Indirect Realism.

E1 The only objective reality I know about exists in my mind, although I believe that an objective reality also exists in a mind-independent world.

E2 The only things I know about exist in my mind.

E3 The only things that have predicates exist in my mind.

E4 The only objective state of this universe I know about exists in my mind, although I believe that an objective state of the universe also exists in a mind-independent world.

E5 I know the state that exists in my mind, and believe that it was caused by a prior state that existed in a mind-independent world.

E6 I know the domain that exists in my mind and believe that there is another domain that exists in a mind-independent world

You over generalize; children's lives are contingent upon their parents, whether dead or alive. — ucarr

This is patently not true or incomplete at best. You are the one over generalizing. A child's life starting is contingent upon their parents initially and that's it. Once the child's life is set in motion there remains some level of dependence but if the parents die after that point, the child doesn't automatically cease to live. If you substitute "existence" for "life" like you do in your next quote, you would have better chance. Once again the words you choose are critical to making a meaningful assertion.

Logically speaking, if your parents cease to exist, you cease to exist. That’s the logical truth of a child being contingent upon their parent. — ucarr

The child coming into being is contingent on it's parents existing in the first place, and so what. It's true and of no particular profundity. Our existence and our lives are processes. The start of the child's (life) process starting is contingent upon the parents (lives) process existing and whether the parents are alive or dead does make a difference obviously. Once the process of life in the child starts, the absolute contingency which you are implying ceases. There is no way to make the parents non-existent once they have existed. Their state changes but the fact of their existence does not. You seem to want to continually use "life"(aliveness) and "existence" interchangeably and that is an error.

Even if you setup a logically valid statement about this contingency, that still doesn't mean the argument is necessarily true anyhow. In formal logic, truth is not determined by logical validity. Once validity is established, then the premises have to be evaluated for truth in order to convey truth upon the conclusion. Truth is truth, logically or otherwise, it's not an important distinction. To say something is logically true is an often misused term. Most people really mean to say something is logically valid and then they try and claim truth based on that validity, but that is a fallacy. The premises still must be true for the conclusion to be true period and end of story regardless of the logical validity.

One last thing is, I will concede the point about bounded infinity. I get what you mean by your example and I was mistaken.

Example: You can't dig up earth without creating a pile of earth and a hole that shake hands symmetrically. — ucarr

This is not an example of a definition. If I didn't know the meaning of the word 'symmetrical', I would not know how to use the word after reading that. — noAxioms

This is my definition of symmetry, i.e., transformation without net change.
— ucarr

That wording sounds more like a definition, even if it's not one that is in any dictionary. But that one is not worded as a premise. — noAxioms

Material things vis-á-vis existence describes a part/whole relationship. Existence indexes physics in that it supervenes as context into all material things. — ucarr

This is one of my premises.

This is not E1 at all. It seems to suggest that a thing exists if it is material. A unicorn exists, but distance does not. — noAxioms

~E1- Existence is a part of all parts of objective reality. My premise above is an elaboration of this definition. Distance examples existence in two modes: a) distance as an interval of spacetime is a material reality; b) distance as an abstract thought is a cognitive reality.

Eternal universe uncaused is my starting point. — ucarr

You start by presuming your conclusion directly? It is not going to in any way justify how we know what exists or not if you presume the list right up front rather than conclude it by some logic and/or evidence. — noAxioms

I have three premises: a) Axiomatic eternal universe uncaused is my starting point; b) Existence indexes physics in that it supervenes as context into all material things; c) Existence adds the context of symmetry and conservation to an emergent thing that has properties.

My conclusion says, "Every existing thing has two parts: a) the local part individualized with defining properties; b) the non-local part which is its ground of symmetry and conservation from which it emerges."

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

I get what you mean by your example (bounded infinity) and I was mistaken. — philosch

Now we're looking at an opportunity to have a good exchange of ideas.

Logically speaking, if your parents cease to exist, you cease to exist. That’s the logical truth of a child being contingent upon their parent. — ucarr

In my quote above, the critically important words are "Logically speaking..." and "...the logical truth..."

As you say, a logically valid argument doesn't always correspond with what's true in life. I was trying to say the same thing with my statement:

Empirical experience is different from pure logic because when a parent leaves human form, they do not cease to exist. — ucarr

Whether its true or not -- I know my idea is way out there and feels wrong -- my statement has me recognizing, like you, that evaluating logical symbols on paper lies a great distance from the flesh and blood frailty of real human lives.

Now, if we focus on the other critical words "bounded infinity," we arrive at another clearing of the fog shrouding my message. Math tells us something important through the concept of bounded infinity. The difference between both life and existence and non-life and non-existence is always infinity. This is why you see me seemingly conflating existence and life.

The child born remembers nothing of the journey to earth from the quintet that funds the general existence of the world. We can make a near approach to our beginning of life, but we never arrive. You can’t ease your way from non-life into life. No, it’s instantaneously alive for the screaming newborn just pulled from the womb. Likewise, you can’t ease your way from life into non-life.

You ask how do I know these things? I only know them by inference from my statements.

At the beginning, and at the end, there is the forever approach to the bounded infinity that nurtures life. What does this mean? The meaning is simple. Life can only be life if it is everlasting with neither beginning nor end. The beginning and the ending of our lives and our semi-verse can be represented by a bi-directional number irrational in both directions.

It's the passage from and return to "forever" that makes us alive. Existence imbues individualized things possessing defining attributes with the fundamentally unexplainable uncontainability of existence that knows itself, life.

Present exists, but it disappears before we notice it.
Past exists in our memories only. Time follows to the future. — Corvus

If you want my opinion, Proper time exists by E2,3,4,5,6. Coordinate time exists E2,3,6 The time you mention above exists E2,3 (pretty much the same score as the tooth fairy).
E1 thus far is meaningless and I cannot assign that to anything.

You are proposing Overdetermination, which is philosophically problematic. A solution to the Overdetermination problem would make a good PhD thesis.

From the Wikipedia article on Overdetermination
Overdetermination occurs when a single-observed effect is determined by multiple causes, any one of which alone would be conceivably sufficient to account for ("determine") the effect. — RussellA

Not overdeterminism because any one of my causes along would not have caused the injury. I already explained this.

I believe that things exist in a mind-independent world and I can justify my belief. — RussellA

Got it. Anything not proven (pretty much everything) doesn't count as 'knowing', so you know nothing. So maybe we should not talk about knowing and just go with what has evidence and what doesn't, looking for plausible conclusions rather than definite ones.

On the other hand, I know my perceptions of colour, smell, taste, etc, which are not matters of either belief or faith.[/quote]I agree with those beliefs. I don't agree that they're any more than beliefs, especially when one begins to question what the 'I' is doing the perceiving, or if it's doing any perceiving at all. Skepticism goes a lot deeper than intuitions. If you're going to play the 'don't know' card, I can play that card in a higher suit.

I know that my perceptions are real

What do you mean by 'are real'? Funny that I've hammered on that question dozens of times and you still use the word without mention of which definition R1-R6 you mean.

Generally, "real" and "exist" are synonyms

Which is why they correspond to E1-E6, but you still didn't pick one.
I got a quote that suggests that Meinong is perhaps using E4 as his definition of exists. He uses a relational definition. Maybe. I'd love to have asked him if the universe exists, because it doesn't fit the E4 requirement of having a location in space.

There are three theories of perception, Idealism, Direct Realism and Indirect Realism. — RussellA

What happened to 'none of the above'? I certainly don't identify with any of those labels. But then, I suppose it comes down to the definition of 'realism', which is not specified in the label 'realist'.

Anyway, thank you for actually considering each of the definitions. Remember that you can add your own if my list is inadequate.
Keep in mind that we're doing metaphysics and not epistemology.

E1 The only objective reality I know about exists in my mind

You're describing E2. If it's objective, it's not relative to anything.
In other words, suppose there are two minds, identical, except that one is real and the other not. How would either of them figure out which one they were? That's E1. It isn't a relation, so they both relate the same things as the other, except presumably the nonexistent mind relates to nonexistent cars and moons and forum posts and v-v. My assertion is that they cannot tell. There's no empirical test.

EPP doesn't hold since both of our candidates have the same properties and experience the same stuff.

E2 The only things I know about exist in my mind.

Sure, by definition. E2 is effectively solipsism or at least anthropocentrism. E2 is reality defined by perception. EPP holds since predication requires a mind in order for the predicate to be.

E3 The only things that have predicates exist in my mind.

No, that's still E2. I think you're stuck on E2. All your comments are about what you know, and none are about the metaphysics of what is. Use logic, not perception, to analyze the mind independent ones. EPP holds under E3 by definition.

E4 The only objective state of this universe I know about exists in my mind, although I believe that an objective state of the universe also exists in a mind-independent world.

Which is like saying that the universe is the universe. EPP apparently doesn't hold because things in other universe also have predicates despite not existing. This has nothing to do with anybody knowing about it. Most of the definitions have nothing to do with epistemology.

E5 I know the state that exists in my mind, and believe that it was caused by a prior state that existed in a mind-independent world.

E4 has nothing to do with me or the universe. It has to do with causality, any causal structure. E5 applies say to the set of all possible chess states. It does not apply to the Mandelbrot set. EPP does not hold because there are things with predication (17 being prime for example) but not meeting the E5 definition. E5 requires a temporal structure.

E6 I know the domain that exists in my mind and believe that there is another domain that exists in a mind-independent world

Again E2. E6 is another mind independent definition. Hard to judge EPP on this one but I think it holds since I can form a contradiction if you posit otherwise.

~E1- Existence is a part of all parts of objective reality. My premise above is an elaboration of this definition. Distance examples existence in two modes: a) distance as an interval of spacetime is a material reality; b) distance as an abstract thought is a cognitive reality. — ucarr

This is leveraging E4, not E1. All the examples are relative to our universe. Your prior definition was that it was 'material'.
BTW, distance is a coordinate difference in spatial coordinates, not a spacetime interval. Distance is frame dependent, and an interval is not. Irrelevant to the topic, I know.

b) Existence indexes physics in that it supervenes as context into all material things; c) Existence adds the context of symmetry and conservation to an emergent thing that has properties.

I have no clue how those words are to be interpreted. You wouldn't even define 'eternal' for me, even though I made it a multiple choice question.

Logically speaking, if your parents cease to exist, you cease to exist. That’s the logical truth of a child being contingent upon their parent. Do you see that this is more evidence that we are neither born nor eventually become dead. With pure logic symbols on paper, we say that if B is contingent upon A, then destruction of A logically demands destruction of B. — ucarr

I suspect English is not your first language? There is no correct English language logical reasoning that would support the premise or conclusion that we are "neither born nor eventually become dead". I'm now convinced you do not understand English and the rules of syntax and meaning, nor the rules of logic or you would not make such an absurd and/or ridiculous statement. Your application of formal logic is drastically, even fatally flawed. You are clearly making an equivalence between being alive and existence which is wrong to start with. It causes you to say that we are not born nor become dead. These terms; existence and ceasing to exist are not biological, they do not map to "begin to live" (born) and ceasing to live"(death), they are different things. You may wish and hope that because you believe existence has no beginning or end that your individual life has no beginning or end and I'm sorry but you are completely misguided in your reasoning.

Your are saying;
P1. A = B
P2 -A = -B
P3 A and -A have no beginning or end
Conclusion: B and -B have no beginning or end

That is explicit formalization of what you are saying where A is existence and B is life or living.
The logic is valid but NOT true. The premises are false to begin with, which I can't seem to get you to understand.

A = B is false (existence does not equal life)
-A = -B is also false (Non existence does not equal death)

So as I stated previously, this is the classic error of thinking logical validity somehow equals truth and it most definitely does not. There is no more to be said about this. If you cannot see the error you are making, I can not help you.

Actually I misspoke slightly. Your formal logic is okay. Your premises are false which leads you astray

then you're in no position to make your supporting claim for your argument: — ucarr

Here's a very basic example of the error you are making;

A = B
B = C
Therefore A = C.

This is logically valid in all cases.

It's sometimes true and most of the time false as a truth claim.

For the above argument to be true, A has to actually be equal to B and B has to actually be equal to C .

This is true in all cases. If A is related to B but not exactly equal to B then the conclusion is false even though the logic is valid. If B is related to C but not identical, then the conclusion is false.

Ex.

P1. 3 = 4
P2. 4 = 7
Conclusion: Therefore 3 = 7.

The logic is valid. The conclusion is still false. The reason is that the premise's are false. There's nothing more to it then that. Your interchanging of the meanings of words has lead you down this fallacious path.

Got it. Anything not proven (pretty much everything) doesn't count as 'knowing', so you know nothing...................................I certainly don't identify with any of those labels. — noAxioms

E1 to E6 can be interpreted from the position of Idealism, from the position of Direct Realism and from the position of Indirect Realism. Each interpretation will be different. Any interpretation of E1 to E6 that is based on a combination of Idealism, Direct Realism and Indirect Realism will become unnecessarily convoluted.

If you don't identify with either Idealism, Direct Realism or Indirect Realism, which theory of perception are you using?

My understanding of Idealism, Direct Realism and Indirect Realism agrees with an article from philosophy A level.com, but there are many articles on these three theories of perception.

This A level philosophy topic looks at 3 theories of perception that explain how we can acquire knowledge from experience, i.e. a posteriori. They are: Direct Realism, Indirect Realism and Idealism

The theories disagree over the metaphysical question of whether the external world exists (realism vs. anti-realism) and the epistemological question the way we perceive it (direct vs. indirect).

Direct realism is the view that the external world exists independently of the mind (hence, realism). And we perceive the external world directly (hence, direct)

Indirect realism is the view that the external world exists independently of the mind (hence, realism). But we perceive the external world indirectly, via sense data (hence, indirect)

Idealism is the view that there is no external world independent of minds (so it rejects realism – both direct and indirect). We perceive ideas directly.

===============================================================================

I got a quote that suggests that Meinong is perhaps using E4 as his definition of exists — noAxioms

Meinong uses the terms "exists", "subsists" and "absists".

We can divide the Universe into the domain of the mind and the domain of the mind-independent.

Objective reality in E1 can refer to both the domain of the mind and the domain of the mind-independent.

By the objective state of this universe in E4, do you mean the domain of the mind or the domain of the mind-independent?

I understand that Meinong uses "exist" to refer to the domain of the mind-independent.

E1 "Is a member of all that is part of objective reality"
E2 "I know about it"
E3 "Has predicates"
E4 "Is part of this universe" or "is part of this world"
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 — noAxioms

If you want my opinion, Proper time exists by E2,3,4,5,6. Coordinate time exists E2,3,6 The time you mention above exists E2,3 (pretty much the same score as the tooth fairy).
E1 thus far is meaningless and I cannot assign that to anything. — noAxioms

I am not sure if E1,4,5,6 make sense or are meaningful for existence of time, when they are made up of abstract and obscure concepts which need clarification.

For instance, what do you mean by "part of objective reality"? Are we supposed to be able to understand and grasp the full meaning of objective reality? What is "this universe"? How far and how much "this universe" supposed to cover, or be? "the causal history"? What do you mean by that? "existential quantification"? Surely that is not time itself is it?

Here's a very basic example of the error you are making;

A = B
B = C
Therefore A = C.

This is logically valid in all cases.

It's sometimes true and most of the time false as a truth claim.

For the above argument to be true, A has to actually be equal to B and B has to actually be equal to C .

This is true in all cases. If A is related to B but not exactly equal to B then the conclusion is false even though the logic is valid. If B is related to C but not identical, then the conclusion is false. — philosch

The logic is valid. The conclusion is still false. The reason is that the premise's are false. There's nothing more to it then that. Your interchanging of the meanings of words has lead you down this fallacious path. — philosch

I acknowledge what you have written above is the truth and moreover, your technique of examination is both sound and correctly applied to my reasoning.

If A = Existence; B = Life, and therefore A = C is the claim being made, then, as you say, the conclusion is logically sound but factually incorrect because, again as you say, Existence ≠ Life.

This is where we differ. You evaluate my argument to the conclusion that A = B. I do not believe Existence and Life are one and the same. It follows, therefore, that I do not intend to conclude Existence equals Life. It may be the case, however, that my statements logically evaluate to this conclusion. If that is the case, then my error lies somewhere in how I evaluate to my intended conclusion.

My goal in this conversation is to examine the question, "Does saying, "a thing with defining attributes exists" add anything to that collection of attributes? My position, contrary to Meinong's position, answers, "yes" to the question. Saying a thing exists places it within a context; the obverse of this is claiming a thing exists outside of an encircling context. I don't expect anyone to make this claim. Moreover, I claim that existence is the most inclusive context that can be named.

Let me try to show you that I do not intentionally evaluate to A = B. Consider: {0,1}. This is a set that examples a bounded infinity. The bounded infinity enclosed within this set is the infinite series of numbers lying between 0 and 1. 0 and 1 are the limits of the infinite series of numbers lying between them. The series goes on forever in both directions without arrival at either of the limits.

Here's the distinction between Existence and Life: Existence equals the scope of numbers from 0 to 1. Life equals the scope of the infinite series of numbers lying between 0 and 1. The scope of Existence is greater than the scope of life even though the latter is infinite.

I know not all existing things are living things.

E1 to E6 can be interpreted from the position of Idealism, from the position of Direct Realism and from the position of Indirect Realism. Each interpretation will be different. Any interpretation of E1 to E6 that is based on a combination of Idealism, Direct Realism and Indirect Realism will become unnecessarily convoluted. — RussellA

Sounds like combining them would create contradictions, not just convolution.

If you don't identify with either Idealism, Direct Realism or Indirect Realism, which theory of perception are you using?

I looked up the SEP page on 'action theories of perception' and got all kinds of options, many of which are not mutually exclusive. I didn't read enough to figure out which one(s) seems to match how I think of it. Your items were not on any of the lists, and are more theories of mind and/or ontology, but apparently you find pages that do list them under 'perception'. All three are realist views, and I'm not a realist (E1), but I could be a realist under E5 in that I acknowledge that certain things relate to other things. E5 explicitly confines this to a causal relation. See my response to Corvus below for more detail.

This topic is about ontology and realism, and not about perception.

By the objective state of this universe in E4, do you mean the domain of the mind or the domain of the mind-independent?

Please read the disclaimer in the OP if you still have to ask that.

I understand that Meinong uses "exist" to refer to the domain of the mind-independent.

Which is consistent with my disclaimer, and which eliminates E2 and narrows things down to 5 possibilities instead of 6.

I am not sure if E1,4,5,6 make sense or are meaningful for existence of time, when they are made up of abstract and obscure concepts which need clarification. — Corvus

What needs clarification then is your notion of 'time'. I said nothing so ambiguous as any of the definitions being applicable or not to time. I listed three very well known and very different kinds of time, all three of which are heavily defined, used, and discussed in literature, and are not obscure at all. Hence my ability to render a meaningful opinion about how the various definitions of 'exists' might apply to each or not.

Interestingly, your description of time in the prior post seems to correspond to my third kind, the kind whose existence I put on par with the tooth fairy. I suspect that it is this definition of 'time' is how you're using the word.

For instance, what do you mean by "part of objective reality"?

That's E1, which I did not list for anything, since I do not identify as a realist. As for what it means, that is unclear. The meaning needs to be clarified by anybody who asserts it, but from my standpoint, a thing that has this property is indistinguishable from a things that doesn't have it, but is otherwise identical. I cannot say that of any of the other 5 definitions. The other 5 are all meaningful in some way, and a distinction can be drawn.

All I can say about E1 is that it is objective, not a relation. So it just plain exists, and not 'is a member-of / part-of some domain', all of which are expressions of relations.

Are we supposed to be able to understand and grasp the full meaning of objective reality?

If somebody asserts E1 existence, then at least a partial meaning would be nice.

What is "this universe"?

The universe that has you in it, as opposed to different universes that don't.

How far and how much "this universe" supposed to cover, or be?

The bounds of 'this universe' is left to the user. Some define it to be only the visible universe, or only 'this world'. If so confined, then other visible universes or worlds become a multiverse of sorts (Tegmark listed four kinds of multiverse, the first and third of which are mentioned here). But at one's choice, these can be considered to all be just 'the universe'. Type 4 is more of an E1 definition: All that exists or all that is real. I find that pretty meaningless.

"the causal history"? What do you mean by that?

This has to do with the E5 definition (causal definition). It is an utterly explicit relational definition that only works with structures with temporal causation. X and Y are system states. Let's say X is a meteor. Y is a moon crater. State X is prior to state Y since it takes time for state X to evolve into a world including state Y.. Since state Y is a function of state X, then X can be said to exist in relation to state Y.
This is a classical example of a definition that comes from quantum mechanics.

For a more quantum example, take Schrodinger's cat. State X is the cat state, in the box. State Y is the lab outside. The cat state (being dead or alive) does not exist relative to the lab since the distinction between dead and alive has had no causal effect on it. Sure, the cat exists relative to the lab since it had an effect on the lab before the box was closed. The cat exists, but it's state of living or not is a counterfactual, and definition E5 denies the principle of counterfactual definiteness which states that systems are in a defined state even when not measured.

"existential quantification"? Surely that is not time itself is it?

No, it has nothing to do with time. 35 is not prime because (∃x) (x is non-trivial factor of 35). That's straight up existential quantification, and an example that makes no reference to time.