Can it not exist?

[Yazata]

Well, I think it gets to the question of what the verb 'exists' actually means. For example, we can agree that certain fictional characters do not exist (Santa Claus, Sherlock Holmes, an honest politician). But *why* do they not exist? What is it that separates them from those things that do exist?

I don't really have a fully formed theory about what the word 'exists' means. But I guess that as an initial approximation I'm inclined to think of something that exists as having its own mind-independent reality. Fictional characters are obviously a problem-case. I guess that I'd say that Sherlock Holmes wouldn't exist if there were no minds capable of understanding Conan Doyle's stories. All there would be is squiggles of ink on pieces of paper.

Ultimately, it is because we can detect things that exist and not things that do not exist.

I don't want to embrace what appears to me to be the idealistic premise implicit there. The way I see it the mind-independent reality of certain things (those that exist) is in no way dependent on what we can or can't detect.

What might arguably be dependent on what we can and can't detect is our knowledge of those things. I'm a bit leery of that idea since we can seemingly know of things by inference, as well as by direct detection. But that might still arguably depend on the detections from which we draw our inferences.

Sorry, but Aristotelian philosophy and metaphysics needs to be left in the last millenium. There are just too many basic philosophical mistakes there to make the system useful.

I have the greatest respect for and interest in Aristotle. He was probably the greatest thinker in all of human history, judging from his surviving works. But that doesn't mean that I accept all of his views. Aristotle was basically inventing many of his subjects de novo for the first time. He was the first logician, the first scientific biologist and many more. Many of the departments in our universities address subjects that Aristotle first defined. Others followed after and expanded on the intellectual subjects he pioneered, but that doesn't detract from his creativity and vision in initially inventing the subjects. But that's neither here nor there, since nothing I wrote is dependent on Aristotelian philosophy.

No, I do not agree with the 'Principle of Sufficient Reason'. I don't believe that everything that exists has a cause.

The Principle of Sufficient Reason didn't originate with Aristotle. Earlier philosophers like Anaximander and Plato knew it. It didn't culminate with Aristotle either. History's biggest proponent of the Principle of Sufficient Reason was probably Leibniz.

I'm undecided on it and certainly am not wedded to it. I was just pointing out how it can be used in an argument for a Deist-style 'God', even if we have no direct or indirect way to detect such a deity.

Contra the Principle of Sufficient Reason I'm willing to entertain the possibility that entirely anomic states of affairs might sometimes exist, states of affairs inexplicable by and perhaps even inconsistent with plugging earlier physical states into the "laws of physics". But I'm not convinced that random stray states like that actually occur, I just don't want to close off the possibility by fiat.

The Principle of Sufficient Reason does seem to be implicit in the practice of science today. We don't just accept biological species as givens, instead like Darwin we want to know how species originate. If we detect a big flash of light a few miles away, followed by a loud concussion, we want to know what exploded and why. If we see a bird soar overhead, we don't just conclude that it's part of the essence of birds to fly. We want to know about the aerodynamics of how birds do it.

Perhaps it's inherent in human cognition. I'm not sure that my dog thinks in terms of explaining things. Whatever she encounters is simply how things are.

I don't think it even works that far. For example, God exists (according to this logic), but has no sufficient reason to exist (a thing cannot be the sufficient reason for its own existence). So that is a contradiction to the system.

It does seem to lead to infinite regresses. We can ask 'why' repeatedly. Every time we get an answer (our sufficient reason) we can ask 'why' about that reason. That's not a contradiction though, strictly speaking. Though how some theists use the principle to terminate in God certainly seems to be. I agree with you about that.

But isn't it also a contradiction to combine "a thing cannot be the sufficient reason for its own existence" with an attack on use of the principle of sufficient reason to hypothesize an explanation other than itself? The path between that Scylla and Charybdis looks to be exceedingly narrow. There might arguably be problems either way.

Ultimately, metaphysics tends to be a collection of biases that people claim are 'obvious'

The same could be said about mathematics which seems to ultimately be based on intellectual intuition. I can't explain the seeming objectivity of mathematics, but in some of my moods I tend towards mathematical Platonism, which obviously is a metaphysical position.

I personally think that the metaphysical questions are the deepest and most fundamental questions we can ask about pretty much anything. I'm not convinced that human beings will ever be in a position to answer those questions. But until we can, the rest of our vaunted understanding will seemingly float without foundations.

And I don't think that we will ever make much progress in the philosophy of religion if we are unwilling to consider the metaphysical issues.

when, in fact, they are usually just false.

How does one determine truth and falsity in matters like these?

 

[blü 2]

Hmm...that National Enquirer article about Elvis coming back after being captured by an alien spaceship seemed rather plausible. It was in writing. We are supposed to believe everything that we read.

Puts on blue suede shoes. Thang gu (Elvis thank you).

Yes, he's been touring around on the moon in that double-decker London bus for the last month or so, but he'll be back for Christmas, they say.

 

[blü 2]

I don't really have a fully formed theory about what the word 'exists' means. But I guess that as an initial approximation I'm inclined to think of something that exists as having its own mind-independent reality. Fictional characters are obviously a problem-case. I guess that I'd say that Sherlock Holmes wouldn't exist if there were no minds capable of understanding Conan Doyle's stories. All there would be is squiggles of ink on pieces of paper.

As regards your discussion with @Polymath257, I think there are two ways in which things can be said to 'exist'.

They can be real, that is, they can have objective existence, in that they can be found in the world external to the self.

Or they can exist solely as concepts or things imagined in an individual brain. It's in that sense that Superman, Santa, the number 2, recidivism, love and a dog (as distinct from this dog) exist.

 

[rational experiences]

Basic thinker. Natural.

Owning no personal.motivation to project self ideals beyond your owned reality. A human in all highest purposes.

To be a human in every single status coldest. Highest support alive living.

Says the immaculate is my spirit as it highest.

Reason. Why claim a life position that owned spatial causes as self owned?

The heavens is pre formed. Heavens the named body. You are not mass the meaning heavens.

You live like water creatures but under less water mass.

The answer...As another human wanted it removed by space thesis as hot.

Reason to reason.

Natural history once just aware as the human and I never had to reason.

My body advice said need to drink water.
My body advice said hungry eat food.

I lived as just a human. As my body said sex was natural by instinctive body conditions.

His story I was innocent first. Natural.

Nothing owned any name.

In this statement the meaning says nothing owned no name or any name. Quote space is nothing cold owned everything in any state.

You had no children to teach and no innocent babies.

You just existed.

No explanation needed. What living aware means.

Then evolution in DNA by environmental conditions cooling amassing of the heavens cold mass increased....changed human body and mind.

Higher healthier even more spiritual by aware life. It was lovely to live aware.

Conditions. Lots of lived mother father humans had died. Whilst new babies grew into adults. Consciousness changed.

Conditions. In evolution told.

Consciousness changed. Obvious it did.

By human death notice consciousness was given other advice. Advice we never needed.

Science.

As the history where a human went wrong and made the worst mistake in modern human life.

All thesis only supports a human in exact human presence only. Thinking as the human. No thesis whatsoever.

 

[rational experiences]

As regards your discussion with @Polymath257, I think there are two ways in which things can be said to 'exist'.

They can be real, that is, they have have objective existence, in that they can be found in the world external to the self.

Or they can exist solely as concepts or things imagined in an individual brain. It's in that sense that Superman, Santa, the number 2, recidivism, love and a dog (as distinct from this dog) exist.

In human life exists human behaviours of humans who care less. Criminals. Would murder another human for organisation. So would theory against another human was our teaching.

Self projection you are not my life you are not worthy to live. A concept human.

Never do they theory against self. They would not experiment with machines on their human life. They say just sex owns the human. Plenty more still living.

Who cares for the human victim? The Jesus teachings said father did. So he told his spiritual children their advice to save themselves from the criminal organisation of greedy brothers. Men who Sacrificed upon us and murdered life who use threats.

Why criminal idealism was a God subject about human behaviour our destroyer.

Would kill us all claiminig I am safe not by science status data about conditions but by personal status I Am a God myself.

 

[Yazata]

As regards your discussion with @Polymath257, I think there are two ways in which things can be said to 'exist'.

They can be real, that is, they have have objective existence, in that they can be found in the world external to the self.

Or they can exist solely as concepts or things imagined in an individual brain. It's in that sense that Superman, Santa, the number 2, recidivism, love and a dog (as distinct from this dog) exist.

Yes, I'm inclined to agree. Sherlock Holmes certainly does seem to exist in some sense, if only as a fictional character. But he does seem to be mind-dependent in a way the Moon isn't. (Fictional characters are an ontological problem case.) I'm less convinced about the number 2. It seems to have more objective reality.

If we ever encounter space aliens, their language and concepts might be radically different than ours, to the extent that we can never understand them. But arguably our mathematics will be pretty much the same. We are likely to have isomorphic natural numbers, even if they have totally different names.

 

[rational experiences]

If you live inside water mass.

Yet infer water as an object just water a state not mass in any thesis.

Are you not then subjective to an outside world as science not human. Living via water mass. By intent I already knew I was otherwise I would not have told myself the advice.

Living outside the reality expressed science.

Do I just stop and say I just advised myself?

No.

Father said you never listened to advice.

Because you want and are motivated by want to not accept any answer until everything is destroyed.

As nothing to understand it's concept is your motivation the state of space.

To teach you we said space and God was mans sin hole. Sink holes.

So you would remove your mind from seeking absolute destruction of planet earth.

Claiming space was earth your pursuit.

 

[Heyo]

And of those, only the first actually *exist*. Numbers and mathematics exist as linguistic conventions, as do other social conventions. And fictional things do not actually exist: that is what it means to be fictional. And illusions, while real experiences do not relate to things that actually exist.

So those 'planes of existence' are mostly non-existent. Only the first actually exists.

Does the UK exist? Laws? Rights?
They all pass the "colour blind" test without having physical existence.
That's why I distinguish between something being real and something existing.
All real things exist but some things that exist aren't real.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Which senses get opened, exactly? And what cognitive tools are used to discern imagined from authentic sensations?

I have not yet come to that in my own practice, so I do not know what senses that open. But the first one is the intuition and I do not mean just the hunch as "oh this must be right" i mean a lot deeper.
And again it will be different for each person.

As I said, spiritual practice is not scientific

 

[DNB]

If it is invisible to your eyes or your other senses, why is it impossible that it does exist without you being able to detect it?
For something to exist, you must see it?

Can it be that other people can see and understand something you can't see or understand?

Yes, many things exist that only some can perceive. As much as a wise person can anticipate a situation before it transpires, and another with the same evidence or experience cannot, some people are more perceptive and insightful than others.
More so, God has employed much discretion in His creation, intending that only the humble and zealous will search and find what has not been revealed in an overt and conspicuous manner. For instance, He has allowed enough ambiguity in His design that permits, on the surface, an alternative explanation as to why the universe exists.
...and yet, His presence and power is rather self-evident to the sincere, precluding any options to claim that the world came into being by chance..

 

[blü 2]

I'm less convinced about the number 2. It seems to have more objective reality.

There are no uninstantiated 2s running around in the wild.

And before you can have an instantiated 2, you yourself must determine WHAT you're going to count, and the FIELD in which you're going to count it ─ ducks on the nearer pond, eggs remaining in the fridge, and so on. The same is true of all numbers and maths entities ─ wholly conceptual.

If we ever encounter space aliens, their language and concepts might be radically different than ours, to the extent that we can never understand them.

Yes, it will be altogether astonishing and illuminating if we ever encounter an ET race as advanced as we are, and we get a glimpse of what those alternatives might be ─ or that there are no radical alternatives.

But arguably our mathematics will be pretty much the same. We are likely to have isomorphic natural numbers, even if they have totally different names.

That too is a question that awaits illumination. As you probably know, we begin with the evolved ability to take in numbers of things at a glance, up to five; but after five, we have to keep a tally of some kind. The 'primitive' examples are notches on a stick, stones into a bag, similar one-to-one tallies, where you count your sheep back into the fold by running your thumbnail down the notches or taking the stones out, again one-to-one.

But if you live in a different medium where eg light doesn't work in your favor, you're going to have a very different approach. And then the question will be whether you end up where we did, and what you've done with your equivalent to maths to get there.

 

[rational experiences]

A natural human not speaking as speaking led to evil has nothing to say as a natural human on God earth.

In reality.

If you lying theist brother stopped talking we would be blessed.

You said accept Jesus. Bible was shut. Thesis accepted owning law oath to swear only to tell truth.

Yet liars are still liars.

0 AD said no numbers.

One God. One cycle O God around the sun. Holy word no numbers a year.

Did not need to count a year as the year was not yet manifested.

The teaching. A thought about very astute man's agreement. Holy life for a regained holy God for holy human life continuance.

Right in that moment agreed.

No maths numbers allowed. Inferred by theme the year but no counting allowed.

Instead a festival marked the term holy season and earth moments. Taken as a holy advised reason to celebrate.

Without needing to use evil maths.

Why the practice was real up until the mind got irradiated into its dark ages.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If it is invisible to your eyes or your other senses, why is it impossible that it does exist without you being able to detect it?
For something to exist, you must see it?

If a thing has no detectable manifestation in reality whatsoever, then how is it functionally different from a non-existent thing?

What is the difference between something that doesn't manifest in any way and something that doesn't exist? How do you distinguish one from the other?

Can it be that other people can see and understand something you can't see or understand?

Depends what you mean by that.
Is it possible that people think they can see and understand something that isn't actually there?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's much deeper than just a belief, it is a deep intuitive acknowledgement of something much greater than our self.
And no spiritual practice is not based on human logic, you have to put it aside.

Hint number 1 that you are just fooling yourself.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If a car drive toward me I already know I could die if it hits me, so yes I do move out of it's way. Do not need logic to understand it is the most correct way to act.

Drawing the conclusion that you should move out of the way or you'll be seriously hurt and best and killed at worse, IS the result of using logical reasoning.

Premise, premise, conclusion. And the premises are well-evidenced and demonstrable.

To say that that is not using reason and logic, is just plain wrong. And rather silly.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, I'm inclined to agree. Sherlock Holmes certainly does seem to exist in some sense, if only as a fictional character. But he does seem to be mind-dependent in a way the Moon isn't. (Fictional characters are an ontological problem case.) I'm less convinced about the number 2. It seems to have more objective reality.

OK, I do NOT see Sherlock Holmes as existing. He is fictional.

The number 2 is a harder nut, but I am definitely NOT a mathematical Platonist. I am mostly a formalist. The number 2 is an entity in certain formal systems that can be used to help us describe reality.

If we ever encounter space aliens, their language and concepts might be radically different than ours, to the extent that we can never understand them. But arguably our mathematics will be pretty much the same. We are likely to have isomorphic natural numbers, even if they have totally different names.

The mathematician Klein (of bottle fame) said that God made the natural numbers and all the rest is the work of humans.

I might believe that the number theory of an alien species would be isomorphic to ours, but I am only 90% convinced of such. I would be quite surprised if they have anything similar to the axioms of ZFC for set theory. Calculus is a strange intermediate position. I'd be surprised if they have the same concepts of continuity and limits as we do, but there are enough different structures that allow for differentiation and integration that some overlap might be found there.

 

[Polymath257]

I don't really have a fully formed theory about what the word 'exists' means. But I guess that as an initial approximation I'm inclined to think of something that exists as having its own mind-independent reality. Fictional characters are obviously a problem-case. I guess that I'd say that Sherlock Holmes wouldn't exist if there were no minds capable of understanding Conan Doyle's stories. All there would be is squiggles of ink on pieces of paper.

I would say that Holmes does NOT exist. if God9s) exist in the same sense as Sherlock Holmes, and people generally admitted that, I would have no problem. They are very useful fictional devices.

I don't want to embrace what appears to me to be the idealistic premise implicit there. The way I see it the mind-independent reality of certain things (those that exist) is in no way dependent on what we can or can't detect.

Even in theory? That I disagree with. Any interaction with things we can detect means there is an effect we can detect and use as a detector. That is how we detect things like neutrinos, after all.

But does it make sense to say something exists that doesn't interact *at all* with anything else? For me, that is at the Sherlock Holmes level: it is fictional.

What might arguably be dependent on what we can and can't detect is our knowledge of those things. I'm a bit leery of that idea since we can seemingly know of things by inference, as well as by direct detection. But that might still arguably depend on the detections from which we draw our inferences.

Exactly. The inference requires detection of some phenomenon that requires something we have not seen. This happens all the time. How do you think infrared light was discovered? By accident with a thermometer.

I have the greatest respect for and interest in Aristotle. He was probably the greatest thinker in all of human history, judging from his surviving works. But that doesn't mean that I accept all of his views. Aristotle was basically inventing many of his subjects de novo for the first time. He was the first logician, the first scientific biologist and many more. Many of the departments in our universities address subjects that Aristotle first defined. Others followed after and expanded on the intellectual subjects he pioneered, but that doesn't detract from his creativity and vision in initially inventing the subjects. But that's neither here nor there, since nothing I wrote is dependent on Aristotelian philosophy.

Aristotle is deserving of respect because he was the first investigator in many areas. he was incredibly original and thought about many things for the first time.

But he was wrong in almost every particular. he was, probably, best in biology, where he was a powerful observer. But his physics was overturned for very good reason. His ideas about place, matter, causality, movement, etc, were simply wrong and badly so.

The Principle of Sufficient Reason didn't originate with Aristotle. Earlier philosophers like Anaximander and Plato knew it. It didn't culminate with Aristotle either. History's biggest proponent of the Principle of Sufficient Reason was probably Leibniz.

I'm undecided on it and certainly am not wedded to it. I was just pointing out how it can be used in an argument for a Deist-style 'God', even if we have no direct or indirect way to detect such a deity.

It inevitably leads to an infinite regress, NOT the conclusion of a deity. In fact, by asking what the sufficient cause of a deity is, it serves to show no deity as usually imagined is possible.

Contra the Principle of Sufficient Reason I'm willing to entertain the possibility that entirely anomic states of affairs might sometimes exist, states of affairs inexplicable by and perhaps even inconsistent with plugging earlier physical states into the "laws of physics". But I'm not convinced that random stray states like that actually occur, I just don't want to close off the possibility by fiat.

The laws of physics are descriptive, not prescriptive. If an event like that occurred (and many have appeared to be like that in history), all that happens in that we watch when and how it happens and formulate a larger physical theory.

The Principle of Sufficient Reason does seem to be implicit in the practice of science today. We don't just accept biological species as givens, instead like Darwin we want to know how species originate. If we detect a big flash of light a few miles away, followed by a loud concussion, we want to know what exploded and why. If we see a bird soar overhead, we don't just conclude that it's part of the essence of birds to fly. We want to know about the aerodynamics of how birds do it.

But we also know that the most fundamental laws *cannot* be described further: they have to be simply fiat (otherwise they wouldn't be the most fundamental laws). The only way to discover them would be through observation and testing.

Perhaps it's inherent in human cognition. I'm not sure that my dog thinks in terms of explaining things. Whatever she encounters is simply how things are.

It does seem to lead to infinite regresses. We can ask 'why' repeatedly. Every time we get an answer (our sufficient reason) we can ask 'why' about that reason. That's not a contradiction though, strictly speaking. Though how some theists use the principle to terminate in God certainly seems to be. I agree with you about that.

But isn't it also a contradiction to combine "a thing cannot be the sufficient reason for its own existence" with an attack on use of the principle of sufficient reason to hypothesize an explanation other than itself? The path between that Scylla and Charybdis looks to be exceedingly narrow. There might arguably be problems either way.

It is a contradiction to the Principle itself. That being the point. You *have* to get an infinite regress. I agree that isn't a contradiction, but it certainly doesn't support the existence of deities.

The same could be said about mathematics which seems to ultimately be based on intellectual intuition. I can't explain the seeming objectivity of mathematics, but in some of my moods I tend towards mathematical Platonism, which obviously is a metaphysical position.

I am a formalist, through and through. I simply don't see another way to understand the development of mathematics over the last two centuries. This is especially true when you bring in Godel's results, but there are many situations where certain axioms (like the parallel postulate in geometry) were thought to be 'obvious' and are now known to be one of many possible assumptions.

I personally think that the metaphysical questions are the deepest and most fundamental questions we can ask about pretty much anything. I'm not convinced that human beings will ever be in a position to answer those questions. But until we can, the rest of our vaunted understanding will seemingly float without foundations.

I see metaphysics as fun to discuss over drinks after dinner. But to think it actually leads to anything resembling knowledge seems wrong to me. it feels mostly like mental games and not serious at all.

And I don't think that we will ever make much progress in the philosophy of religion if we are unwilling to consider the metaphysical issues.

And I wouldn't see that as a bad thing. We don't now spend much time on the philosophy of the plenum and for good reason.

How does one determine truth and falsity in matters like these?

By observation and testing. Any ideas that cannot be tested need to be held with a lot of skepticism.

 

[F1fan]

I have not yet come to that in my own practice, so I do not know what senses that open. But the first one is the intuition and I do not mean just the hunch as "oh this must be right" i mean a lot deeper.
And again it will be different for each person.

As I said, spiritual practice is not scientific

So you could be experimenting and think you are opening your senses and experiencing a God when really it just your imagination?

Let's note that most all theists end up believing in their gods due to what they pick up and adopt from there people in their society and culture.

 

[F1fan]

Yes, many things exist that only some can perceive. As much as a wise person can anticipate a situation before it transpires, and another with the same evidence or experience cannot, some people are more perceptive and insightful than others.

You seem to be describing maturity and wisdom here, not independent objects that our senses perceive. Jim can understand that drinking and driving is not a smart thing to do, but Dave is indifferent to the risks. This isn't something to perceive, but a test of one's wisdom and reasoning.

More so, God has employed much discretion in His creation, intending that only the humble and zealous will search and find what has not been revealed in an overt and conspicuous manner.

How do you know this is true versus some element of religious ideology that you have adopted without evidence? Can you admit your assertion here isn't factual, and merely something that is part of Christian dogma?

For instance, He has allowed enough ambiguity in His design that permits, on the surface, an alternative explanation as to why the universe exists.
...and yet, His presence and power is rather self-evident to the sincere, precluding any options to claim that the world came into being by chance..

IOW, God set things up in a way that appears to be as if no God exists. So how does an objective and rational mind come to believe that a God does exist when there are no facts?

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, many things exist that only some can perceive. As much as a wise person can anticipate a situation before it transpires, and another with the same evidence or experience cannot, some people are more perceptive and insightful than others.

And some can do mathematics while others cannot (or will not). What difference does that make?

The wise is able to think better, not perceive better. And, if perception is all that is required, we have many devices to help with that.

More so, God has employed much discretion in His creation, intending that only the humble and zealous will search and find what has not been revealed in an overt and conspicuous manner. For instance, He has allowed enough ambiguity in His design that permits, on the surface, an alternative explanation as to why the universe exists.
...and yet, His presence and power is rather self-evident to the sincere, precluding any options to claim that the world came into being by chance..

Sounds like a good myth to me. But reality? Not so much.