What is the difference from "being physical" and "existing"? Aren't those two ways of saying the same thing?

All existing things exist. They cannot exist in non-existence. They all exist in something. Call this thing Existence. — Philosopher19

I'm a plain language person. So given the level of technical detail from fishfry et al, I'm jumping in here with more than a bit of trepidation. But fools rush in - I'll try to analyze what I think you're saying in my own clumsy way:

All existing things exist. — Philosopher19

Seems like a tautology to me, but just for completeness we need to extend the property of existence to energy fields & spacetime as well. Spacetime exists.

They cannot exist in non-existence. — Philosopher19

Not quite sure what you're getting at here - it seems like you're saying "Things do not have the property of non-existence"? But this falls out of the definitions of the words. So at best you're simply re-stating your first sentence in different words. Nothing wrong with that. :smile:

They all exist in something. Call this thing Existence. — Philosopher19

And here is where we go astray. I'm seeing two inter-related problems. The first is calling this "thing" Existence.. Using the word Existence leads to confusion - let's use the word universe. So now we have:

They all exist in something. Call this thing the universe.

Next using the word "something" looks wrong to me. The universe is not a thing. The universe does not contain itself. So to make this work, let's rephrase these two sentences like this:

They all exist in the universe.

This works. In fact we can now combine the two revised sentences:

All existing things exist in the universe.

That works. Then finally we have this:

Call the set of all existing things, Existence. Existence is the set of all existing things (including Itself because it Itself exists). — Philosopher19

And here is the third point where we disagree. I am far from an expert in Set Theory - but the basic concepts are clear and comprehensible to the average person. Sets are not real. Sets do not have the property of existence - they are mathematical constructs with mathematical properties according to various mathematical rules. The universe is not the set of all things that have the property of existence.

The universe IS all things.

Or put differently by this very smart philosopher guy I once read :razz:

The universe is all that is the case.

If I am wrong, then I am an idiot — Philosopher19

I agree with the hypothesis of that sentence, I disagree with the conclusion.

So next - would you personally prefer to live in a free / anarchic society OR would you prefer to live in a society which has clearly defined rules (and for the sake of this thought experiment you can choose the rules)

Don't tell me . . . — Book273

I'm not telling you anything. I understand your definition of the word "free" - and I am not criticizing your definition. OK - at least not yet . . .

But I am not seeing any distinction between your use of the word "free" and how I would use the word "anarchist".

So I'll repeat my question - As you define the words - do you see a distinction between a "free society" vs "anarchist society"? If so, please elaborate.

Just to be clear - do you make any distinction between "free" vs "anarchy"? Or are those two words interchangeable?

I'm not following your logic. You agree with me that the question is wrong/illogical - i.e., the question has no meaning. And yet you go ahead and attempt to answer it anyway.

A question has been asked — TheMadFool

No - a question has not been asked. A bunch of disconnected words have have been strung together and a question mark has been placed at the end. It may be some form of poetry - maybe analogous to religious talk - but it is not subject to any logical analysis.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but by your definition of "free society" am I free to kill someone I don't like?

1. Something
2. Nothing
3. Infinity
4. Zero — TheMadFool

For completeness, you might want to add this choice:

5. The question is wrong / illogical

I take my lead from Donald Trump - I only think the best thoughts. :joke:

Right - I was thinking of parachuting where you hit wind resistance. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but when you jump out of a plane, your inner ear detects acceleration (or so I've been told).

I'm not trying to sound critical, but it seems like you already answered your question even before you posed it. Did you think that someone here on the forum would come up with some magical formula to change your mind?

That said - do you like playing with other musicians of your caliber? If so, once the pandemic has eased, go out and join a band or go to some jam sessions. Have fun!

"Never compose anything unless the not composing of it becomes a positive nuisance to you." Gustav Holst

I am in a similar situation and deeply relate to what you're saying.

Do you enjoy the process of creating/composing? Do you enjoy listening to your music after is is completed? Do you feel that your music has merit and is worth listening to (don't compare to anything else)?

If the answer to any of these questions is yes, then I would encourage you to continue creating music - as I have.

You need to accelerate first to get to free fall velocity. Your inner ear detects acceleration.

Einsteinian Physics is counter-intuitive, because much of it is Meta-physical. — Gnomon

I was a physics major in college. I make no claims to being very good at it, but once you accept the two basic premises that that nothing can go faster than c and that the laws of physics are invariant in all frames of reference? There is nothing counter intuitive about it.

The math is indeed very hard (my stumbling block), but there is nothing "meta" about it. Special & general relativity are real & measurable. They have no intrinsic "meaning".

When we look for matters of fact, we see physics. But when we search for meaning, we find meta-physics. — Gnomon

These statements have no literal meaning. They are very much like all religious statements, they are a type of imaginative poetry.

But don't let my grousing stop you - as far as these things go it's relatively harmless. . .

You can feel gravity. — EricH
How do you do that. — god must be atheist

Hmm - off the of of my head I can think of a few simple tests.

1) Lift your arms up and then relax them. You will feel your arms falling back to your sides.

Please be careful as you perform this next test.
2) Stand on a low chair or stool. You will feel a brief sense of acceleration as you are falling down. You will also feel some sudden de-acceleration as your feet hit the floor. To get the maximum experience of this effect, go sky diving (be sure to take a parachute. :razz:

I could be mistaken, but I believe the sensations you will experience from these experiments are the result of gravity acting on your arms (#1) or your whole body (#2)

I relate to your comments. One little nit-picking detail:

So...is gravity meta-physics? It is very real to me. And yet it is not something you can see, touch, smell or taste. — god must be atheist

You can feel gravity.

But my wife's sister, whom she is VERY close to, inhales Fox News and believes every word. — Hippyhead

Hah! We have a very similar situation in our family - sister-in-law is Trump supporter. We love her dearly. The crazy making thing (well OK, one of many crazy making things) is that she (and most Trump supporters) is not stupid - AND - she voted for Obama in 2012.

Go figure . . . .

Let’s assume nothing is eternal. — leo

I can't make any sense out of this sentence. What does the word "nothing" refer to? Is "nothing" a label for the null set? How can "nothing" have a property of being eternal?

As far as I can tell this is a nonsense sentence. Classic examples of a nonsense sentences are "Quadruplicity drinks procrastination" or "Colorless green dreams sleep furiously". We recognize that these are grammatically correct and the words have reasonably well defined definitions - but we all recognize that these sentences do not express a coherent thought using the standard definitions.

Perhaps there is another way of phrasing this? Perhaps "There is no object in the physical universe that has the property of being eternal"?

To expand a bit on what @Banno just said - if you are a witness in a court of law - when you swear to tell the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth? What this means is that your statements will (to the best of your abilities) accurately describe events/facts.

Correspondence Theory of Truth

Are there other categories of facts besides "absolute facts"? E.g. Are there any facts that are not absolute? Are there facts that are green? Unhappy? Ambiguous?

If not, then we can toss the "absolute" part of that phrase and simply ask "Is there such a thing as a fact?"

As an aside, certain politicians would have us believe that there "alternate facts" - but that is outside the scope of this particular discussion (I hope). :razz:

You claimed that astronomers spend most of their attention to objects and don't pay sufficient attention to space. Call that statement A.

Several people besides myself pointed out that this is not the case. Call that ¬A.

You acknowledged that ¬A is correct.

So you are saying both A and ¬A.

I can't make it any clearer.

“Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)”

― Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass

I apologize for the sarcasm - it was gratuitous and uncalled for. But dude? Do you see that you're contradicting yourself?

Now if you want to go Walt Whitman, that's OK. If you were to say something like "Yes, I know what I'm saying sounds contradictory, but please work with me and let's see where this goes"? There are folks out here who would take you up on it.

As example, astronomers seem to spend most of their time focused on things in space, instead of space itself. — Hippyhead

It may not get the same attention as discoveries about new galaxies, but the nature of "space"is a subject of intense interest in the scientific community. — EricH

Could I please go on record as stating that I already know all this, so that members will be relieved of the burden of posting it over and over? — Hippyhead

As long as you're at it, would you also please go on record acknowledging that you are contradicting yourself, so that members will be relieved of the burden of posting it over and over?

A principle that may earn wide agreement is the notion that one's philosophy should be built upon observation of reality. — Hippyhead

Well duh, but yes.

do they increasingly fail to mirror reality, which is dominated by space, emptiness, a void? — Hippyhead

And now you are breaking your own principle. Space is not an empty void. It is full of particles, energy fields, etc. Countless numbers of matter anti-matter pairs pop into existence and then self annihilate.

It may not get the same attention as discoveries about new galaxies, but the nature of "space"is a subject of intense interest in the scientific community.

A principle that may earn wide agreement is the notion that one's philosophy should be built upon observation of reality. — Hippyhead

Couldn't agree more.

I'm not playing your games. Your inability after numerous requests to give a clear explanation of your terms demonstrates that you yourself don't understand what you're saying.

I give you the last word in this fruitless exchange.

there isn't an attribute that each and every object in the universe possesses. — TheMadFool

At this point I'm still trying to understand what you're saying. When I first saw this sentence it seemed wrong to me since under the plain language usage of the word object - things you can bump into - there are clearly such physical attributes - mass, they occupy space, etc

But before pointing this out to you I wanted to double check how you were using the word objects in the context of this sentence. Hence my question about atoms, photons, etc.

And you responded that you were using the plain language definition

Yes, I'm referring to objects at the human scale - things we can, well, bump into. — TheMadFool

So clearly using YOUR definition/usage there ARE attributes that each and every object in the universe possesses.

We're in search of something that runs like a thread through all physical phenomena, in effect unifying them, just as producing milk for offspring unifies a segment of the living world as mammals. — TheMadFool

Now you seem to be changing things around. Instead of talking about objects you're now talking about physical phenomena. That's OK - perhaps "objects" was a poor choice of words (although it would be nice if you acknowledged that).

So one more time, and then I give up:

there isn't an attribute that each and every object in the universe possesses. — TheMadFool

Dear sir or madam - please clarify what you mean by the word objects in this sentence. Thank you.

[reply="TheMadFool;454262"

there isn't an attribute that each and every object in the universe possesses

Could you clarify how you are using the word object here. — EricH

Yes, I'm referring to objects at the human scale - things we can, well, bump into. — TheMadFool

Perhaps I'm totally misunderstanding what you're saying, but given your definition of object don't all objects posses the physical attribute of having rest mass (among other properties) — EricH


Thoughts don't have mass. Radio waves don't have mass. Photons don't have mass. — TheMadFool — EricH

Are you seriously suggesting that radio waves and thoughts are physical objects at the human scale?

Could you clarify how you are using the word object here. — EricH

Yes, I'm referring to objects at the human scale - things we can, well, bump into. — TheMadFool

Perhaps I'm totally misunderstanding what you're saying, but given your definition of object don't all objects posses the physical attribute of having rest mass (among other properties) — EricH

Thoughts don't have mass. Radio waves don't have mass. Photons don't have mass. — TheMadFool

I'm OK working with however you choose to define your terms - but you gotta pick a usage/definition and stick to it. When you use the word objects? Are you including thoughts & photons in your usage/definition?

there isn't an attribute that each and every object in the universe possesses. — TheMadFool

Perhaps I'm totally misunderstanding what you're saying, but given your definition of object don't all objects posses the physical attribute of having rest mass (among other properties) ?

there isn't an attribute that each and every object in the universe possesses. — TheMadFool

Could you clarify how you are using the word object here.

E.g., Are you referring to physical objects - chairs, planets? Are you going more granular down to atoms, electrons, sub-atomic particles? Photons? etc.

Sing a song, dance joyfully, cherish every moment

You're over thinking it :smile:

Breathe in, breathe out, repeat . . . . . . My 2 cents worth.

But that's not what Trump was saying. He was saying that even if we do not have a vaccine, herd mentality (his words) would eventually eliminate COVID. He just neglected to mention that this would cost millions of lives.

The fact that slavery and legalized segregation are gone does not mean that systemic racism has disappeared. The fact that things are not as horrible as they were 200 or 100 years ago does not mean that everything is OK. By any unit of measurement, people of color are at a severe disadvantage - income, infant mortality, health care, jail sentencing, etc, etc, etc.

One more time. If you think that there is no systemic racism in the USA go do your own survey. Talk to some black people - listen to their experiences of what life is like on a daily basis.

Atheism as argument is not on any position regarding God, it is instead a pointing out of the inadequacy of the arguments of theists. — tim wood

Ah - back to the Definition Wars.

According to wikipedia:
Atheism is in the broadest sense an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.
So according to wikipedia you use the term atheist in the broadest sense. Atheist.org also takes this stance.

However, if we look in dictionary.com, we see that atheism is the doctrine or belief that there is no God. A quick google search will find similar definitions in many places.

The broad definition also invalidates the commonly accepted definition of agnosticism - agnosticism was coined as a term coined by Huxley specifically to differentiate his thinking from atheism - but with this "broad" definition of atheism, agnosticism is simply a subset of atheism.

My take on this is that the "broad" definition of atheism is too broad - and it goes against the commonly accepted definition of the terms. If you ask the average person on the street what these terms mean they'll say atheists deny that god exists (the less broad or narrow sense) and agnostics aren't sure (i.e. agnostics are not atheists).

And all this this leaves me - a lonely ignostic - out of the conversation altogether. :smile:

All other things being equal - our USA society places a higher value on the life of a white person than that of a black person. — EricH

Wrong. There are many of blacks that make more than many whites combined. — Harry Hindu

The fact that a small percentage of black people have achieved financial success is irrelevant to the discussion.

This didn't answer my question. — Harry Hindu

Correct. if you are in denial that systematic racism still exists in the USA, then there is no point in discussing how to address it.

Does systematic racism still exist in the USA? I'll repeat myself. Don't take my word for it. Don't rely any surveys or statistics. Go out and do your own research. Talk to 10 black people and ask them about their experiences. Report your results here.

I guess we can add lying to your list of possible responses. — tim wood

I'll disagree with you on this one. It's not that they are lying - or even stupid or ignorant.

They have (metaphorically) painted themselves into a philosophical corner. For them to acknowledge even the smallest possibility that they are wrong would require a completely re-wiring of their thought processes & the way they conceive themselves. (I'm sure there are better ways of expressing this)

That is not going to happen due to any online exchange.

The best one can hope for is that a seed has been planted that may take years to bear fruit. Cursing and insults are counter-productive in this regard. My 2 cents. . . .

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.
OK, Mr. Dickens which was it? Was the best of times or the worst of times. You can't have it both ways. You're violating LEM there Mr. Dickens.

Really? I'd call it illogical. — 3017amen

Exactly - you are asserting an illogical statement that has no basis in reality.

In the right context this sentence could be part of a poem or a work of literature. But there is no logical or philosophical conundrum here.

But how is driving and not driving possible? — 3017amen

That sentence has no meaning. You're back doing poetry.

The proposition that I was driving and not driving at the same time is true because it has more than two truth values; you were kind-of driving. — 3017amen

Are you saying that it is impossible for a person to do two things at the same time? I know I can. I can both drive and day dream at the same time. Of course, this is not a safe thing to do - but that is a separate issue.