Can something exist and not exist at the same time ?

[mikkel_the_dane]

If you can state the conclusion, you can show the premises that led to it.

Yeah, that would at least be valid. As for sound, we are then beyound strict formal logic.

 

[Koldo]

Of course there is, don't be silly.

In physics, potential energy is the energy held by an object because of its position relative to other objects, stresses within itself, its electric charge, or other factors

Do you want to go there?
Let's dive into it then.

Tell me on what grounds you would defend that potential energy exists in potentiality but doesn't exist in actuality.

 

[Koldo]

Yeah, that would at least be valid. As for sound, we are then beyound strict formal logic.

What would be valid?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What would be valid?

If the conclusion follows from the premisses, we call that valid.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Do you want to go there?
Let's dive into it then.

Tell me on what grounds you would defend that potential energy exists in potentiality but doesn't exist in actuality.

The potential exists, and can be measured. That's the point.

 

[ChristineM]

If it exists in one place, but not another, is that existing and not existing at the same time?

I guess that wherever i am i am nowhere else.

 

[LuisDantas]

Existence isn't necessarily a binary state. There are half-formed things, there are glitches of perception, there are ambiguities, there are changes of criteria. There are plenty of reason why things can both exist and not exist depending on various perspectives and circunstances.

That does not mean that we can simply arbitrarily decide to ignore evidence and decide whether something exists out of convenience; it means instead that reality can be complex and challenging to understand and describe.

 

[Koldo]

If the conclusion follows from the premisses, we call that valid.

Sure. But that's not what I asked. I asked what you called valid.

 

[Koldo]

The potential exists, and can be measured. That's the point.

Equivocation - Wikipedia

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sure. But that's not what I asked. I asked what you called valid.

P1: I am a human.
P2: All humans are mortal.
C: I am mortal.

The conclusion is valid as it deductively follows from the premisses.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Equivocation - Wikipedia

Can you expand on that?

 

[Koldo]

P1: I am a human.
P2: All humans are mortal.
C: I am mortal.

The conclusion is valid as it deductively follows from the premisses.

Once again, I understand that just fine. You still didn't answer my question though. What were you calling valid when you first talked to me on this topic?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Once again, I understand that just fine. You still didn't answer my question though. What were you calling valid when you first talked to me on this topic?

I didn't claim anything as such as valid. I pointed out that there is difference between valid and sound as for logical deductions,

 

[Koldo]

Can you expand on that?

Sure. On this topic, the word 'potentiality' is being used in opposition/contrast to the word 'actuality'. @RestlessSoul is then picking up as an example of the former the potential energy. I asked of him to provide an argument for potential energy not existing in actuality, and he just shrugged away my request as if it was unnecessary. It is, however, only unnecessary if you interpret that the word 'potential' in 'potential energy' carries the exact same connotation as the word 'potentiality' as used on this topic, which is an equivocation.

 

[Koldo]

I didn't claim anything as such as valid. I pointed out that there is difference between valid and sound as for logical deductions,

How does this relate to anything I have stated?

 

[stvdv]

I was on The Christian Fourm and say a question simaler to this and thought that it was profound so I created my own question inspired by that thread now just because I don't see a cat outside doesn't mean that the cat outside doesn't exist it just doesn't exist to my conscious perception.

Can something exist and not exist at the same time ?​

YES, for sure

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If you can state the conclusion, you can show the premises that led to it.

How does this relate to anything I have stated?

Your first post is about the concept of valid as per the word "led".
I just pointed out that valid and sound are not the same.

 

[Koldo]

Your first post is about the concept of valid as per the word "led".
I just pointed out that valid and sound are not the same.

No, my first post is not about the concept of valid.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Sure. On this topic, the word 'potentiality' is being used in opposition/contrast to the word 'actuality'. @RestlessSoul is then picking up as an example of the former the potential energy. I asked of him to provide an argument for potential energy not existing in actuality, and he just shrugged away my request as if it was unnecessary. It is, however, only unnecessary if you interpret that the word 'potential' in 'potential energy' carries the exact same connotation as the word 'potentiality' as used on this topic, which is an equivocation.

Now you're splitting hairs. In each case, the connotation of potential is distinct from actual. More specifically, potential energy is energy of configuration, while actual energy is energy of activity.

You tried to argue earlier, that to exist in potential, is to not exist. Which clearly isn't a reflection of nature, as we experience it.

 

[stvdv]

I was on The Christian Fourm and say a question simaler to this and thought that it was profound so I created my own question inspired by that thread now just because I don't see a cat outside doesn't mean that the cat outside doesn't exist it just doesn't exist to my conscious perception.

Great question

Most important question for Truth seekers

According to Advaita Vedanta Teachings