Are There Things that Don't Exist?

[Ouroboros]

I asked this on Yahoo Answers and got 119 answers! So I figured it must be a good enough question to ask here.

Truly think about this, are there things that don't exist?

Sounds like a contradiction to me.

Are there any X that is not an X?

"Are there things" can be exchanged for "Are there things that exist." I'd say that's the underlying meaning of the "Are there."

So it becomes a contradiction, in my opinion.

 

[BSM1]

I asked this on Yahoo Answers and got 119 answers! So I figured it must be a good enough question to ask here.

Truly think about this, are there things that don't exist?

Yes, but I don't know what they are.

 

[Willamena]

Sounds like a contradiction to me.

Are there any X that is not an X?

"Are there things" can be exchanged for "Are there things that exist." I'd say that's the underlying meaning of the "Are there."

So it becomes a contradiction, in my opinion.

"Not an X" exists as the negation of X. Negations exist. Non-existence is a word meant to capture the special exception, the negation of existence. It's all about where your personal ontology chooses to place the goalposts: some things are allowed to exist and other not vs. things exist.

 

[Willamena]

Yes, but I don't know what they are.

How do you know they don't exist, then?

 

[BSM1]

How do you know they don't exist, then?

Do you see them?

 

[Ouroboros]

"Not an X" exists as the negation of X.

As a logical statement, yes.

Negations exist.

Sure. As a statement.

Non-existence is a word meant to capture the special exception, the negation of existence.

Sure, but when you say that non-existence is the same as existence, then the claim exists, but the claim isn't true.

A predicate is either true or false, right?

A=~A. Is that true or false?

It's all about where your personal ontology chooses to place the goalposts: some things are allowed to exist and other not vs. things exist.

Some things exist and some things don't.

But if we say that some things that exist don't exist, then we're creating a contradiction. The only way that's true is if we'd accept that logic isn't true either (which of course is an option as well).

---edit

Another way of taking this on is to assume the premise to be true: things exist that don't exist.

I think what happens here is that we're treating "things exist" as a fact about the things, while the "don't exist" is treating existence as a property. It might be a problem of conflicting or incompatible categories.

Or put it this way, can we ask "is there a post on this forum that is not on this forum?" Is a contradiction. But "is there a post on this forum that is empty?" Is not, but it treats "is there" differently than "is empty." It's two different aspect of a "post". To be vs having a property of emptiness.

---edit2

Thinking a bit more about it, perhaps you were talking about concepts of things? The concept of gnomes exist, even though gnomes don't exist as actual instances. It's a bit like classification of things. The class of birds exist, and instances of birds (objects) also exists. The class of gnomes exist, but actual instances of gnomes do not.

When the question is asked "are there things..." it's a bit vague exactly which kind of "are there" is intended. Is it "are there concepts of things in existence about things that do not themselves exist?" could be one interpretation.

 

[Jainarayan]

Nothing and nothingness don't exist. As soon as you think of nothing, even as an empty black void, it becomes something and exists.

I'll bet you thought I was going to throw in "Who said 'nothing unreal exists?'" "T'Planahath, Matriarch of Vulcan Philosophy". But haha on you, I didn't say that.

Wait, wut? :areyoucra

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Are there things that don't exist?

Are there people or places that don't exist?

Things, by their very nature, exist. It's one of the inherent attributes of things.

Now, you could say does Hillary Clinton's penis exist? And apart from the possiblity that she does, in fact, have a penis, this type of question is more a matter of semantics than substance.

 

[Willamena]

Sure, but when you say that non-existence is the same as existence, then the claim exists, but the claim isn't true.

A predicate is either true or false, right?

A=~A. Is that true or false?

But that's what you say when you allow for things to "not exist."

Non-existents don't exist.

Better to affirm things in the form and manner that they do exist, be it imaginary, possible, potential or other.

Some things exist and some things don't.

But if we say that some things that exist don't exist, then we're creating a contradiction. The only way that's true is if we'd accept that logic isn't true either (which of course is an option as well).

---edit

Another way of taking this on is to assume the premise to be true: things exist that don't exist.

I think what happens here is that we're treating "things exist" as a fact about the things, while the "don't exist" is treating existence as a property. It might be a problem of conflicting or incompatible categories.

Or put it this way, can we ask "is there a post on this forum that is not on this forum?" Is a contradiction. But "is there a post on this forum that is empty?" Is not, but it treats "is there" differently than "is empty." It's two different aspect of a "post". To be vs having a property of emptiness.

I see it as an issue conflating the existent X with the existence of X--the latter makes existence a property, while the former affirms our X, be it a real X or an X for discussion. The negation of "the post on this forum" is the post that was, would, could or should be on this forum but isn't.

It is not the posts that are not made--those do not exist. They can have no truth value.

---edit2

Thinking a bit more about it, perhaps you were talking about concepts of things? The concept of gnomes exist, even though gnomes don't exist as actual instances. It's a bit like classification of things. The class of birds exist, and instances of birds (objects) also exists. The class of gnomes exist, but actual instances of gnomes do not.

When the question is asked "are there things..." it's a bit vague exactly which kind of "are there" is intended. Is it "are there concepts of things in existence about things that do not themselves exist?" could be one interpretation.

Concepts exist in the same way other things do. A thing is something with identity. "The concept of things" is, itself, something.

Existence and consciousness go hand in hand: you can't have one without the other. Existence is everything with identity, and at the same time everything consciousness has identified. The imagined flock of birds has the same existence value as the real flock of birds: the signficant difference between them is their truth value. Truth value can be held distinct from existence value or not--as I said, it depends on where your ontology has constructed those goal posts.

 

[Ouroboros]

But that's what you say when you allow for things to "not exist."

Non-existents don't exist.

Exactly. That's why it's a contradiction to say "X that doesn't exist, exists." Its' like X=~X.

Better to affirm things in the form and manner that they do exist, be it imaginary, possible, potential or other.

And? Not sure what you mean.

I see it as an issue conflating the existent X with the existence of X--the latter makes existence a property, while the former affirms our X, be it a real X or an X for discussion. The negation of "the post on this forum" is the post that was, would, could or should be on this forum but isn't.

That's one of the things I talked about. The phrase "are there things" can be construed many different ways simply because of the vagueness of language. One of the phrases I had above was conflating the actual existence with the use of existence as a property. In programming it's the difference between instantiation and property initiation. An object can be instantiated or not, and if it has been instantiated, it is either initiated or not. A variable can exist or not, but if it exist, it can still have a null value (not defined). There are basically several layers of the use of the word "existence."

But if someone uses it in one sentence, it should be used on the same level/category all out, and not change midways.

It is not the posts that are not made--those do not exist. They can have no truth value.

Exactly. Agree. If they don't exist, they have no properties.

But if you treat the same word the same way in one sentence, and it's negating itself, then it's a contradiction.

Concepts exist in the same way other things do. A thing is something with identity. "The concept of things" is, itself, something.

I didn't say they didn't. Concepts exist, but they don't exist the same way though.

There are things that exist on an abstract level, and things that exist on a concrete level. If we talk about "there are things that are abstract that exist but they don't exist as abstract" we're still making contradictory statements.

If we're saying "abstract thing exist and these abstract things are concepts about things that do not exist", then we're in agreement. That can be true.

Existence and consciousness go hand in hand: you can't have one without the other. Existence is everything with identity, and at the same time everything consciousness has identified. The imagined flock of birds has the same existence value as the real flock of birds: the signficant difference between them is their truth value. Truth value can be held distinct from existence value or not--as I said, it depends on where your ontology has constructed those goal posts.

Sure.

Let's invent a new word Blorb. If I say: Blorb exists. And then say: Blorb do not exist. Have I contradicted myself or not?

---edit

Wait. Perhaps you're trying to tell me this: "There exist concepts of concepts that do not exist?" Is that what you're saying? If so, I think it's still a problem of conflating different aspect of the word "concepts." One is referring to one set of concepts, and the other to another set. Are there A=B such that B={}. Sure. That works. But that's why language makes such a mess out of it.

 

[moshlawd]

Yeah. Peace.

 

[gzusfrk]

I asked this on Yahoo Answers and got 119 answers! So I figured it must be a good enough question to ask here.

Truly think about this, are there things that don't exist?

Of course not, they don't exist.

 

[sun rise]

We need a solipsism DIR.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Truly think about this, are there things that don't exist?

I think you need to be more specific with your use of the copula (is/are/"to be" in English) and what you mean by exists. Under one reading, we might respond:

P1: There are no things which don't exist (or all that is, exists).
P2: All humans are mortal
3: There exists no human who is immortal |logically equivalent to P2
4: No immortal human exists |logically equivalent to P2 & 3
Conclusion: there are things which don't exist (immortal humans) |from 3 & 4

There is a reason for the existence operator in predicate logic (where symbols like "Lxy" can represent predicates such as "x likes y"). That is, the logician is free to select any letter and various other symbols to represent any n-ary predicate (one place predicates like "John sleeps", two place predicates like "Jill wakes John", three place predicates like "Jill gave the book to John", etc.). Predicate logic, however, does more than simply add to predicates and their variables to propositional logic. It also adds to additional operators: ∃ and ∀. The former means (more or less) "there exists" while the latter means "for all".

Spoiler: An example

For example, here's the formal expression of the definition of a limit in calculus:

I won't translate all of the first line and will bold the only relevant part, starting at that "lim": "the limit of x as x tends to r equals L if for all epsilon greater than 0 there exists a delta greater than 0 such that whenever the absolute value of difference between x and r is greater than 0 and less than delta, the absolute value of the distance between function f evaluated at x and the limit L is less than epsilon".

These quantifiers aren't just very specifically defined, but like much in formal logic they lead to seeming nonsense. "the statement 'All eleven-legged alligators are orange with blue spots' is true, since if it were false, then there would exist a eleven-legged alligator that is not orange with blue spots."
(Hubbard & Hubbard's Vector Calculus, Linear Algebra, and Differential Forms).

The reason for these operators are the paradoxes one derive if existence is allowed to be treated like a predicate as well as the difficulty ensuring that one's formal/symbolic "statements" mean what they are intended. There is all the difference in the world between ∃(x) (Ox & Px) or "there exists an x such that x is Obama & x is the president" and ∃(x)Ox & Px or "Obama exists and someone is president".

The existential operator can't take variables like predicates, it can only operate on them. To formally assert that there is something which doesn't exist would be ~∃(x) [∃(y) & y=x] "or there exists no x such that there exists a y and y is x". This, however, is to say that there isn't an x that is x.

 

[Revoltingest]

I finally found an example of something which does not exist:
The free lunch
Unlike other things which are describable, but only exist in concept,
the fundamental premise of the "free lunch" is its non-existence
in both concept & the natural world.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I finally found an example of something which does not exist:
The free lunch.

Cooler/more interesting than square circles. Problem solved.

 

[Willamena]

Exactly. That's why it's a contradiction to say "X that doesn't exist, exists." Its' like X=~X.

It's just a negation. Negations exist. If I say, "John has no nose," that's a nose that can, should, could, and othewise would be there, in the picture of "John," but isn't.

You used it yourself when you said, "Abstract things are concepts about things that do not exist." There are no things that do not exist--to not exist is to not be a thing.

Rather than criticize that the subject line contains a contradiction, we could recognize that the OP utlizes a contradiciton to better make his question. It's rhetoric.

And yes, it can be seen as a semantical issue, but it's also a metaphysical issue in that how we speak informs the way we think (and vice-versa).

And? Not sure what you mean.

Take the sentence, "Abstract things are concepts about things that do not exist." More clearly, we should be affirming things in their existence, not any contradictiory non-existence. "Abstract things are concepts about things with no physical referent."

That's one of the things I talked about. The phrase "are there things" can be construed many different ways simply because of the vagueness of language. One of the phrases I had above was conflating the actual existence with the use of existence as a property. In programming it's the difference between instantiation and property initiation. An object can be instantiated or not, and if it has been instantiated, it is either initiated or not. A variable can exist or not, but if it exist, it can still have a null value (not defined). There are basically several layers of the use of the word "existence."

But if someone uses it in one sentence, it should be used on the same level/category all out, and not change midways.


Exactly. Agree. If they don't exist, they have no properties.

But if you treat the same word the same way in one sentence, and it's negating itself, then it's a contradiction.

I think only one sense for "existence" was intended to be used in the OP--how that sense is interpereted will depend on the ontological image the reader holds, but I think the presence of a rhetorical contradiction is intended to make that sense clearer.

That a contradiction arises at all informs what sense of "existence" is meant.

I didn't say they didn't. Concepts exist, but they don't exist the same way though.

There are things that exist on an abstract level, and things that exist on a concrete level. If we talk about "there are things that are abstract that exist but they don't exist as abstract" we're still making contradictory statements.

If we're saying "abstract thing exist and these abstract things are concepts about things that do not exist", then we're in agreement. That can be true.

They exist the same way, because of what "exists" means to me. Whether or not that existent has a physical referent or an actuality or a truth value, etc., would specify a difference and make for clarity.

Sure.

Let's invent a new word Blorb. If I say: Blorb exists. And then say: Blorb do not exist. Have I contradicted myself or not?

I don't know Blorb.

---edit

Wait. Perhaps you're trying to tell me this: "There exist concepts of concepts that do not exist?" Is that what you're saying? If so, I think it's still a problem of conflating different aspect of the word "concepts." One is referring to one set of concepts, and the other to another set. Are there A=B such that B={}. Sure. That works. But that's why language makes such a mess out of it.

I'm just saying, things exist.

 

[BSM1]

We need a solipsism DIR.

But if one decides not to show would the rest of us be here?

 

[Ouroboros]

I'm just saying, things exist.

Of course things exist.

I think we're talking past each other. I might take a new shot at it later to see if I can explain myself better.

But to quote you, "There are no things that do not exist--to not exist is to not be a thing." Which is what I was trying to say. To say that "to not exist is to be a thing" is a contradiction, but it all depends on what the author of the question intends with "things", "be", "there", "do" vs "do not", and "exist". It's all hidden in the vagueness of language.

 

[Willamena]

...It's all hidden in the vagueness of language.

Ooo... that's a whole other argument.