What is the meaning and scope of existence?
We often talk about existence of a thing, being or not a thing or unknown, but scope of subject is not well understood...
When we say "exists" or "does not exist", to what kind of stuff existence should apply?
1. thing (ex. a car, computer)
2. being (ex. animal, God)
3. not a thing (ex. physical laws, emotions)
4. unknown (ex. dark matter, something in the context but undefined)
Similarly what preconditions must be (or don't have to be) satisfied for something to exists? ex:
1. it must be organoleptically detectable (knowing what is there)
2. it must be common phenomena (knowing something is having an effect)
3. it must be reproducible (knowing how to reproduce an effect)
4. not detectable (not knowing something it's there, but it's there)
5. it must be time consistent (not stopping to exist)
Or short question, How would you anatomize and define "existence"?
What constitutes existence and to what it applies?
Few problem examples, limitations of a language:
- Is it correct to say virtual particles exist since we know they both exist and do not exist (they pop into and out of existence)
- Similarly can we say electricity "exist"? since sometimes there is for certain no electricity (ex. thunder)
If that's not correct, then what word should be used for "existence" of things that both exist and do not exist? that is for things which are subject to time or unknown property such as virtual particles.
I could construct a lot of such questions, but I'd rather leave some imagination to you to ask and analyze.
When we say "exists" or "does not exist", to what kind of stuff existence should apply?
1. thing (ex. a car, computer)
2. being (ex. animal, God)
3. not a thing (ex. physical laws, emotions)
4. unknown (ex. dark matter, something in the context but undefined)
Similarly what preconditions must be (or don't have to be) satisfied for something to exists? ex:
1. it must be organoleptically detectable (knowing what is there)
2. it must be common phenomena (knowing something is having an effect)
3. it must be reproducible (knowing how to reproduce an effect)
4. not detectable (not knowing something it's there, but it's there)
5. it must be time consistent (not stopping to exist)
Or short question, How would you anatomize and define "existence"?
What constitutes existence and to what it applies?
Few problem examples, limitations of a language:
- Is it correct to say virtual particles exist since we know they both exist and do not exist (they pop into and out of existence)
- Similarly can we say electricity "exist"? since sometimes there is for certain no electricity (ex. thunder)
If that's not correct, then what word should be used for "existence" of things that both exist and do not exist? that is for things which are subject to time or unknown property such as virtual particles.
I could construct a lot of such questions, but I'd rather leave some imagination to you to ask and analyze.
Comments (47)
Existence is related to awareness. Furthermore the importance of being alive, thus, have all our organs working and so on, it would be meaningless debating about my own existence if I am not aware of that. I even think that consciousness could be one of the few good examples of proving our existence.
I think, therefore I am. - Descartes.
He [Descartes] decides that he cannot be deceived about his own existence, because if he didn't exist, he wouldn't be around to worry about it. If he didn't exist, he wouldn't be thinking; so if he is thinking, he must exist. This is usually stated in Latin: Cogito ergo sum,
That's the wrong, popular view. Virtual particles are single particles, rotating, oscillating, or fluctuating in spacetime. So not a pair of them (particle-antiparticle). They are just as real as "real" particles and are the medium by which real particles interact with each other. Moreover, real particles owe their existence to virtual particles and can be seen as time extended virtual particles.
Quoting 180 Proof
Mass psychosis. Your brain is washed clean to the bone marrow. :lol:
Agree, this applies only to beings, specifically to me, to self.
sure, but there must set of rules to differentiate real from unreal.
Quoting Hillary
I know 180 Proof is hardcore atheist but I'm trying hard not to turn this conversation into a God debate or to limit conclusions to ontology :smile:
btw. here is one quote I like from wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence
Still, you ask for the meaning if existence. How else can existence have a meaning apart from existence being being there for a reason, i.e., created with intention. If existence popped up out of nothing, what's the reason? It would be meaningless. We could fool ourselves with self-made meaning, of course. But we fool ourselves only then.
Grammar (semantics). Logic (LNC).
Nice quote! A single electron would get hopelessly lost in space. It's existence gets more and more confused and foggy.
Why he is an atheist? He likes fooling himself?
I am fool too
1. Please respect others who don't follow your religious path
2. Fooling because he doesn't need an infantile subterfuge to hideaway on?
9-to-5 I prefer Epicurean-Spinozist (but afterhours and most weekends I'm a Zapffean Absurdist).
:up:
He is free to fool himself! I respect his not being religious! If he ir you don't wanna believe in gods it's up to you!
Who's showing disrespect now?
Subterfuge from what? You are the one taking subterfuge.
Nice interest, I didn't mean to insult you :victory:
I don’t need any subterfuge because I don’t fear neither concern anything. I just assumed the suffering of this life we walk through. I have other view of the traditional Western values. You can call me a pessimistic or a hyper-dramatic romanticized
:death: :flower:
And what I envied most about him was that he managed to reach the end of his life without the slightest conscience of being burdened with a special individuality or sense of individual mission like mine. This sense of individuality robbed my life of its symbolism, that is to say, or its power to serve, like Tsurukawa’s, as a metaphor for something outside itself; accordingly it deprived me of the feelings of life’s extensity and solidarity, and it became the source of that sense of solitude which pursued me indefinitely. It was strange. I did not even have any feeling of solidarity with nothingness. - Yukio Mishima.
If you don't fear the gods (you absolutely don't have to fear them) then why you still hide from them?
How would you apply it to non material things such as dark matter and physical laws, is following valid?:
1) Dark matter has an effect on the universe
- This statement implies that both dark matter and universe exists
2) Physical laws govern how universe behaves
- This statement implies that both physical laws and universe exists
Premises 1 and 2 are logical truths, therefore existence of concluded entities is true.
Can you please construct an argument about God from example I gave above?
You mean the previous comment?
yes
Again, I don’t need to hide from anything. God is not my concern neither my answers to my problems.
Okay, I'll give it a try. A constructive critique, I hope.
"1) Dark matter has an effect on the universe
- This statement implies that both dark matter and universe exists"
Yes. But both dark matter and dark energy are ohysical features. Dark matter is probably black holes and dark energy a geometric feature.
"2) Physical laws govern how universe behaves
- This statement implies that both physical laws and universe exist."
I think the laws don't govern but describe some idealized abstract features.
I'm not addressing your problems, how could I? I address the general problem of meaning and reason of existence.
OK, here is an argument, existence does not imply a physical thing:
1) A red car exists
Q) Where is red car?
A) You can easily find a red car
Conclusion: Therefore a red car exists
2) Physical laws govern\describe material world
Q) Where are physical laws?
A) It's impossible to find them anywhere
Conclusion: Therefore physical laws don't exist
conclusion 1 is logical truth and conclusion 2 is logical false because premise 2 is true:
Therefore we do not need to locate non material things to claim their existence.
You asked me why I was hiding from something... Then I answered you. If you do not like my answers or arguments it is fine but typing random messages it is quite weird...
I like your answers. I just want to understand how the reason of existence can be found without gods.
Are you saying if there is no reason for existence of an entity then such entity could not exist?
It is not necessarily to find answers to your existence. I guess the issue is more simplistic than you really think. We do exist and we have awareness. These facts follow us in uncertainty we belong to. You are free to find some answers on God but I do not want to find anyone. I guess I am simplistic
Yes. How can non-intelligent things, like elementary particles, and life evolving from them, exist without a reason for their existence, without intelligences that have created them?
But there is no reason as to why people exist?
And similarly, there is no reason as to why dark mater exists?
There is no reason for many things, but this does not imply nonexistence, people do exist, and dark mater does exist.
Every reason has another reason behind it. At some point we just have to accept that we are here and the world exists.
You dont. One applies rules grammar and logic to one's descriptions / explanations of e.g. "dark matter and physical laws".
What then is the reason people exist? Or any other creatures? To spread genes or memes? What's the reason for that? If the reason fir life is to procreate life we're back to square one. Is evolution the reason? Then what's the reason for evolution? Are we a collection of particles with their origin at time zero? Then whatever the reason for those particles and time zero? Is the reason just to love, live, and do nice things? Sing, dance, paint, work maybe?
Why does there have to be a reason?
reason is subjective in this context.
And for resolution of existence or non-existence welcome but not necessary.
Without reason life is meaningless. It has to have evolved for some intelligible reason. Only if eternal heavenly intelligences have created the universe's basics, life has a reason why it evolved. The eternal heavenly intelligences don't need no reason.
ok
What kind of resolution you look for? You look for the nature of existence?
I seek a definition of existence of anything, ex. how do we know something exists.
Quoting 180 Proof
Therefore according to you grammar and logic is not the tool for the problem because we know upfront physical laws and dark matter exist, I find this contradictory to your previous suggestion:
Quoting 180 Proof
You seem to suggest that there must be 2 or more ready "formulas" to the problem, and then applying formula based on the problem present?
I'm not sure I follow you either.
Do you consider physical laws and dark matter to be invalid territory and thus no point to create grammar-logic maps around such things?
I'm saying your question
Quoting SpaceDweller
is incoherent. "Rules apply" to maps (e.g. theoretical models) and not to the territory (e.g. "dark matter and physical laws").
My attempt is to categorize entities.
You think analysing dark matter and physical laws individually would produce different result?
Sorry for intruding between you and 180Proof, but why you mention dark matter? It's just matter. Same as what the Sun is made of.
Quoting SpaceDweller
Thus, grammar & logic are indispensable.
A question for a physics forum.
The sun is also made of electrons. It would be a huge proton! Imagine that! Who says dark matter is not made of them too? Condensed in small black holes?