If there is some memory of it, it exists. If you are an adherent of the holographic model of the universe, you can say that it exists, if there is a holographic pattern of it.
To ask such a question seems to presuppose that there is only one "way" or "mode" of existence. Does an Boeing 747 exist in the same way the number three exists? What's the difference between the existence of a unicorn and a mountain, or an appointment and a lawn mower?
Tentatively, I would say that a characteristic of existence would be causal relevancy. To exist means to be a value in a causal sequence. Inert, motion-less, and undetectable beings don't exist - or at least they don't exist in the same way actual existants do. They're pure possibility, a contingency waiting to be understood and apprehended by another entity. They're "dead" in the sense that they are not an active part in the operation of the world and thus their existence is entirely redundant. What difference would it make if eleven unknown, causally inert existants existed instead of ten? There would be none, and it's also hard to see why they would exist to begin with.
But to ask for an "essence" of existence; well, this opens the door to the question of how essence exists. If there is something that makes existence what it is, then there has to be something "below" existence, something more primal and formal. If existence is seen like Play-Doh, then we can ask what Play-Doh is made of. Maybe there's something "less" than existence, but more likely I think is that existence is either a false predicate, or it's an irreducible complexity (it has parts that cannot be separated - re: Aristotelian hylomorphism, Piercean semiotic theory, hell, even OSR or something goofy-looking like that).
What Being is, the ontological question, has been an ongoing issue in metaphysics since its very origin, but one that has largely been ignored in favor of "weaker" ontic questions. What exists takes precedence over the question of existence itself.
If there is some memory of it, it exists. If you are an adherent of the holographic model of the universe, you can say that it exists, if there is a holographic pattern of it.
What do holograms have to do with whether something exists or not?
Reply to tom A holographic pattern within universal waves would be the defining aspect of existence, but one must first embrace the holographic model of the universe and memory.
I forgot to say that I haven't read any philosophy, so I'm not familiar with its vocabulary, so if it's possible, please use as less strange language as possible :D
For example, I don't know what any of these mean: holographic model of the universe, existence is either a false predicate, Aristotelian hylomorphism, Piercean semiotic theory, hell, even OSR
Reply to mew Existence as a false predicate comes from Kant. Aristotelian hylomorphism is the theory that substance (another esoteric term unfortunately) is made up of a two-part duality, Form and Matter. Peircean semiotic theory is a system of signs meant to help explain a lot of things. OSR = ontic structural realism, a theory in the philosophy of science.
I didn't want to imply something like that. So, are there different ways of existing? Do these ways have something in common?
There certainly are different ways of existing, in the sense of different sorts of arrangements and configurations and what have you. But the question remains: are all these different ways only ontically different? Are they unified ontologically?
Reply to mew In my frame of understanding things, Memory would be a holographic imprint which is embedded in the fabric of the Universe. Yes, thought would be involved since it is the reference wave that observes the Memory but thought had to be considered in its most extended meaning. Stephen Robbins provides the most accessible explanation that Bohm presented his speculative version in his writings which he discussed the Undivided Universe.
Mew (the actual person who is represented by "Mew" and her avatar).
The tree outside your window
The number 3 (or 2, 1, 356, etc.)
Jupiter (the god)
Jupiter (the planet)
Galaxies that are too far away for us to see
Sub-atomic particles that are too small to see
The Wizard of Oz
As you see, the list includes things that are physically substantial and real (like you, the tree, the planet Jupiter); concepts like numbers; things that are too small or too far away to see, but which existence can be inferred (sub-atomic particles and the first galaxies); things like the god Jupiter and the Wizard of Oz -- who have existed only as religious or literary figures.
The verb "to exist" covers all of these, but "to exist" doesn't make the insubstantial "material". No one will ever run into Baum's Wizard of Oz anywhere, ever. But the Wizard of Oz is still a "real literary creation" which exists.
Analogy: there are different sorts of noodles. But are all noodles made of the same thing?
Similarly, there are cars and people and numbers and mountains. Are they all "unified' in the sense that they all exist in the same fundamental ontological way?
A holographic pattern within universal waves would be the defining aspect of existence, but one must first embrace the holographic model of the universe and memory.
I see, a pattern within universal waves that happens to be holographic defines existence.
Where does one encounter these waves, and how does one tell that a pattern within them is holographic?
Are they all "unified' in the sense that they all exist in the same fundamental ontological way?
I don't know!!! What Banno said, "to exist is to be spoken of", seems similar to what Rich said, "If there is some memory of it, it exists". So, the Wizard of Oz exists. You said that to exist is to be causally relevant. Would you say that a literary character can be causally relevant?
I'm also reading a book which says that causes do not exist! Patterns exist. If causes do not exist, then to exist is not to be causally relevant. If we accept patterns exist instead of causes, would it make sense to say that to exist is to be part of a pattern?
I'm also reading a book which says that causes do not exist! Patterns exist. If causes do not exist, then to exist is not to be causally relevant. If we accept patterns exist instead of causes, would it make sense to say that to exist is to be part of a pattern?
Is that David Hume's "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding" (1739)?
Reply to Rich An ad hom would be if I claimed an argument here is wrong because the author's mother wore army boots. But what I claimed, indirectly, is that philosophers are poor physicists, and ought avoid physical unless they can present the mathematics.
A good answer is that to exist is to be the subject of a predicate - that is, roughly, to exist is to be spoken of.
So Santa Exists.
Pay attention to Banno.
Abstract things are immaterial. "Beauty" as an ideal is immaterial. So is "ideal" immaterial. "Immaterial" is immaterial. Immaterial, and "insubstantial", the way you are using it, are no bars to being real, though.
If I say, "The Kingdom of Zirkon" located in another galaxy far away, is a great place to live." then the Kingdom of Zirkon exists. I just called it into existence, as Banno said, by speaking of it.
You might object saying, "Maybe Zirkon is a great place, but unfortunately it isn't 'real'." and you would be correct. It exists, but it isn't real. Just as Santa exists and is not real (so I have been told, anyway), or Oz and its wonderful wizard exist but are not real.
So, an atheist can say "God exists."
A lot of philosophy sounds like some sort of annoying word game.
Existence suggests something acting or being acted upon.
If existence has an essence it is differentiation.
Is this different than what darthbarracuda said? Namely that to exist is to be causally relevant? What do you mean by the second sentence? Does it mean that since acting or being acted upon requires change and change implies differentiation then existence is about creating difference?
Reply to Bitter Crank Do you agree with darthbarracuda that to exist is also to be causally relevant? If you do, and since you believe that fictions exist (in some way), which way you think they're causally relevant?
Existence suggests something acting or being acted upon.
If existence has an essence it is differentiation.
— Cavacava
Is this different than what darthbarracuda said? Namely that to exist is to be causally relevant? What do you mean by the second sentence? Does it mean that since acting or being acted upon requires change and change implies differentiation then existence is about creating difference?
Causality is found in nature. Do you think Justice, Morality affect us? If so, their affects are not causal, but discursive, and they are as much a part of reality as a hammer or a goat.
I think differentiation (repetition of what is discriminated suggests sameness) is basic to being. Rest & motion are both necessary, otherwise our knowledge of anything is problematic.
Hello. What does it mean for something to exist? Does existence have an essence?
As you can see from the confusion of replies, you are asking for a simple definition of something that has irreducible complexity.
The essential idea is that to exist is to have actuality. And as Aristotle argued, that kind of individuated substantiality is a combo of material and formal cause. There has to be some kind of materiality that explains the reactivity. And it has to be constrained in some fashion that gives it its particularity.
So even thought about in simplest terms, two things have to come together in a way that results emergently in a third. Reactive potential has to be given a particular shape. Then we have some thing that is individuated - that is in physics-speak a degree of freedom. Or in semiotics-speak, a difference that makes a difference.
So one can point to ideas or the things we might agree to talk about. They are certainly part of the story of the road that leads to substantial existence. Even a fairy story might be true - if made material.
Likewise one can start over at the other side of matter. Something definite exists when quantum indeterminism is organised into an observable state - like a field's potential for a particle. But unformed potential does not actually exist in itself. It needs to be formed to have the kind of actuality that allows definite causal interactions.
So existence should be considered as the highest state of hylomorphic development. It is the concrete limit of a process of emergence. And we do then also want to grant reality to the two factors that are in interaction - the formal and material causes of being. They seem to "exist" in that they both really have an effect. But metaphysics has to respect that they don't themselves exist in a substantial fashion, otherwise it all collapses into a confusion of jargon.
Metaphysician UndercoverFebruary 05, 2017 at 22:46#532530 likes
Comments (48)
Tentatively, I would say that a characteristic of existence would be causal relevancy. To exist means to be a value in a causal sequence. Inert, motion-less, and undetectable beings don't exist - or at least they don't exist in the same way actual existants do. They're pure possibility, a contingency waiting to be understood and apprehended by another entity. They're "dead" in the sense that they are not an active part in the operation of the world and thus their existence is entirely redundant. What difference would it make if eleven unknown, causally inert existants existed instead of ten? There would be none, and it's also hard to see why they would exist to begin with.
But to ask for an "essence" of existence; well, this opens the door to the question of how essence exists. If there is something that makes existence what it is, then there has to be something "below" existence, something more primal and formal. If existence is seen like Play-Doh, then we can ask what Play-Doh is made of. Maybe there's something "less" than existence, but more likely I think is that existence is either a false predicate, or it's an irreducible complexity (it has parts that cannot be separated - re: Aristotelian hylomorphism, Piercean semiotic theory, hell, even OSR or something goofy-looking like that).
What Being is, the ontological question, has been an ongoing issue in metaphysics since its very origin, but one that has largely been ignored in favor of "weaker" ontic questions. What exists takes precedence over the question of existence itself.
What do holograms have to do with whether something exists or not?
https://youtu.be/RtuxTXEhj3A
For example, I don't know what any of these mean: holographic model of the universe, existence is either a false predicate, Aristotelian hylomorphism, Piercean semiotic theory, hell, even OSR
If there is no memory of something, it doesn't?
Thanks! I guess I'll have to read all these people to understand your answer :P
I didn't want to imply something like that. So, are there different ways of existing? Do these ways have something in common?
That's OK. Nobody else does either.
There certainly are different ways of existing, in the sense of different sorts of arrangements and configurations and what have you. But the question remains: are all these different ways only ontically different? Are they unified ontologically?
What counts as memory though? For example, if there is a footprint somewhere but noone ever sees it, doesn't it exist? Is memory the same as thought?
:D
Quoting darthbarracuda
I'm afraid I don't understand the question :s
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=holographic+universe+theory&lr=lang_en&as_sdt=1%2C33&oq=holographic+universe
Mew (the actual person who is represented by "Mew" and her avatar).
The tree outside your window
The number 3 (or 2, 1, 356, etc.)
Jupiter (the god)
Jupiter (the planet)
Galaxies that are too far away for us to see
Sub-atomic particles that are too small to see
The Wizard of Oz
As you see, the list includes things that are physically substantial and real (like you, the tree, the planet Jupiter); concepts like numbers; things that are too small or too far away to see, but which existence can be inferred (sub-atomic particles and the first galaxies); things like the god Jupiter and the Wizard of Oz -- who have existed only as religious or literary figures.
The verb "to exist" covers all of these, but "to exist" doesn't make the insubstantial "material". No one will ever run into Baum's Wizard of Oz anywhere, ever. But the Wizard of Oz is still a "real literary creation" which exists.
Make sense?
Can we say then that the insubstantial is unreal? Or is it just immaterial?
So Santa Exists.
Analogy: there are different sorts of noodles. But are all noodles made of the same thing?
Similarly, there are cars and people and numbers and mountains. Are they all "unified' in the sense that they all exist in the same fundamental ontological way?
I see, a pattern within universal waves that happens to be holographic defines existence.
Where does one encounter these waves, and how does one tell that a pattern within them is holographic?
While I agree that this is the question being asked, I think it is the wrong question to ask.
It looks like it is reifying existence - treating it as a first order predication. It isn't.
I don't know!!! What Banno said, "to exist is to be spoken of", seems similar to what Rich said, "If there is some memory of it, it exists". So, the Wizard of Oz exists. You said that to exist is to be causally relevant. Would you say that a literary character can be causally relevant?
Welcome to philosophy! ;)
I'm also reading a book which says that causes do not exist! Patterns exist. If causes do not exist, then to exist is not to be causally relevant. If we accept patterns exist instead of causes, would it make sense to say that to exist is to be part of a pattern?
Is that David Hume's "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding" (1739)?
How can a wave have a holographic pattern inside it?
Existence suggests something acting or being acted upon.
If existence has an essence it is differentiation.
How can a wave BE a holographic pattern?
Exactly, it's for failed philosophers!
This deserves an ad hom.
And if you adhere to the Goat Theory of the Universe, you can say it exists, if it is a goat.
But only if it's a holographic goat!
Quoting Banno
Pay attention to Banno.
Abstract things are immaterial. "Beauty" as an ideal is immaterial. So is "ideal" immaterial. "Immaterial" is immaterial. Immaterial, and "insubstantial", the way you are using it, are no bars to being real, though.
If I say, "The Kingdom of Zirkon" located in another galaxy far away, is a great place to live." then the Kingdom of Zirkon exists. I just called it into existence, as Banno said, by speaking of it.
You might object saying, "Maybe Zirkon is a great place, but unfortunately it isn't 'real'." and you would be correct. It exists, but it isn't real. Just as Santa exists and is not real (so I have been told, anyway), or Oz and its wonderful wizard exist but are not real.
So, an atheist can say "God exists."
A lot of philosophy sounds like some sort of annoying word game.
Is this different than what darthbarracuda said? Namely that to exist is to be causally relevant? What do you mean by the second sentence? Does it mean that since acting or being acted upon requires change and change implies differentiation then existence is about creating difference?
Do you agree with darthbarracuda that to exist is also to be causally relevant? If you do, and since you believe that fictions exist (in some way), which way you think they're causally relevant?
Goats on heat :D
Causality is found in nature. Do you think Justice, Morality affect us? If so, their affects are not causal, but discursive, and they are as much a part of reality as a hammer or a goat.
I think differentiation (repetition of what is discriminated suggests sameness) is basic to being. Rest & motion are both necessary, otherwise our knowledge of anything is problematic.
Jean-Luc Mélenchon is a very progressive goat
As you can see from the confusion of replies, you are asking for a simple definition of something that has irreducible complexity.
The essential idea is that to exist is to have actuality. And as Aristotle argued, that kind of individuated substantiality is a combo of material and formal cause. There has to be some kind of materiality that explains the reactivity. And it has to be constrained in some fashion that gives it its particularity.
So even thought about in simplest terms, two things have to come together in a way that results emergently in a third. Reactive potential has to be given a particular shape. Then we have some thing that is individuated - that is in physics-speak a degree of freedom. Or in semiotics-speak, a difference that makes a difference.
So one can point to ideas or the things we might agree to talk about. They are certainly part of the story of the road that leads to substantial existence. Even a fairy story might be true - if made material.
Likewise one can start over at the other side of matter. Something definite exists when quantum indeterminism is organised into an observable state - like a field's potential for a particle. But unformed potential does not actually exist in itself. It needs to be formed to have the kind of actuality that allows definite causal interactions.
So existence should be considered as the highest state of hylomorphic development. It is the concrete limit of a process of emergence. And we do then also want to grant reality to the two factors that are in interaction - the formal and material causes of being. They seem to "exist" in that they both really have an effect. But metaphysics has to respect that they don't themselves exist in a substantial fashion, otherwise it all collapses into a confusion of jargon.
I would say that to exist is to have temporal extension. Anything which in some way stays the same, for a duration of time, exists