Can something exist and not exist at the same time ?

[PearlSeeker]

To discuss the perception of entities in higher dimensions, I think it's helpful to start with some fundamental concepts:

Point Particle: When I think about a point particle, I consider it a theoretical concept in physics where an object is thought to have mass but no spatial dimensions. For me, this means the particle exists at a single point, with no extension in space.

Two-Dimensional Beings: In Edwin A. Abbott's Flatland, I see that two-dimensional beings exist only on a flat surface. These beings can move along this plane but have no concept of a third dimension. For them, moving up or down doesn’t make sense, which I find intriguing.

Three-Dimensional Beings: I, along with everyone around me, am a three-dimensional being. We interact with objects that have length, width, and height. To me, this means we can move in all spatial directions, and our perception is based on a three-dimensional experience.

Four-Dimensional Beings: When I think about four-dimensional beings, I imagine a concept where there’s an additional spatial dimension beyond the three we know. In physics, I understand that the universe is sometimes described as a four-dimensional spacetime continuum, where time acts as the fourth dimension. If I could interact with a four-dimensional being, it might access the inside of a sealed bottle without needing to open it, which I find fascinating.

The big question for me is whether humans could ever perceive or interact with entities from higher dimensions. Right now, I feel that our understanding of dimensions beyond the third is quite limited, and our sensory capabilities are confined to three-dimensional space. The idea that there might be individuals who can sense or interact with higher-dimensional entities is speculative, but it's a topic I find intriguing and one that continues to spark my interest, even if it's still far from concrete evidence.

An interesting speculation but I have some doubts. Flat people would notice a 3D being if one came into their world because a 3D being inhabits also the two dimensions of 2D. We would also notice a 4D being. Furthermore, no one has ever met any flat or dot beings.

I see this as a putely abstract mathematical concept.

 

[PearlSeeker]

When you stand close to a bonfire in a cold night, you get to experience heat. Is this heat potential or actual?

Energy is the capacity (potential) to do work. Work is a transfer of internal energy - in one system the energy decreases in other it increases. When bonfire produces heat what you experience is work - actualization of energy's capacity.

"The internal energy of a system decreases when it works on its surroundings. The system’s internal energy increases when work is done on a system. The energy change from work, like heat, always happens as part of a process: a system can do work but not contain it."

Internal Energy Work

Internal energy is the energy stored inside the system as a result of the random movements of the particles and the potential energies of the molecules as a result of their orientation.

unacademy.com

 

[Betho_br]

Statistical math and science deal in this dichotomy of potential and actual. Nothing has the odds 0 or 1, fully potential or fully actual, but rather it assumes both exists; >0 and <1. This is not a good way to do rational science since half formed things, like fuzzy dice, leave too much room for the imagination and poor graphing. It makes con jobs easier by allowing more angles.

If you were doing a statistical experiment, you place the phenomena in the figurative black box; Schrödinger's cat. We leave the box closed; start with no theory. We input things and measure the output. The problem is since the cat is both alive and dead, how do we know whichcat is involved in the output or not? A rational theory already knows since it will open the box and can see the cat, and therefore can make predictions, since it knows what to expect. The black box is not so certain. We have margins of error and levels of certainty and do not know either way. We draw the best curve through the data and then try to formulate a theory, with the box still closed. This gives us hope since our theory is both dead and alive so it cannot be dismissed either way.

One data point out of place with a rational theory will need revision. Half the data out of place in a statistical theory gets to linger. Not all science is created equal.

Take the theory of Evolution, which based on black box science. It cannot be used to make accurate future predictions. We can catalog the past and see pattern of change, but the mechanism that could allow us to make future predictions is still inside the black box, stuck somewhere between potential and actual. This is where the debate between reason and Schrödinger's cat come in. Many see the potential realized, based on how many people it employs. Why would we I invest so much into it, if it was not useful? While those who do not see the future predictive value, sense it is short of actual; not the final rational version but not still a black box stepping stone.

This is why marketing, sales, polling, politics, focus groups, and even gaming and gambling all use this same math. Nothing is 100% guaranteed and anything can be inflated. This may not be in the best interest of science even if it creates assembly line jobs. Politics and science need to be separate which is hard to do with they share the same math and politics can use that to game the system; Schrödinger's cat.

The DNC is keeping Harris in a black box; Schrödinger's cat, with level and certainty and margin of error. Reason is suspended and it comes down to feeling, one way or the other. Fake new will then put its finger on the scales. This can also occurs in black box science.

As a side note connected to the discussion of potential energy;

Free energy is defined by the equation G=H-TS, where G is total free energy, H is enthalpy or internal energy like the energy in gasoline, or deuterium, T is temperature in degree K, S is entropy which is a measure of complexity.

The second law states that the entropy of the universe has to increase, which implies as S gets larger, the -TS term causes the universal free energy to lower. While energy conservation says this energy has to be conserved. However, since universal entropy has to increase over time, is that energy, lost to entropy, negative potential energy?

We can get that entropic energy back, in part, but it always cost more energy to do that, than we will get back. There is no such thing as perpetual motion. We cannot use a machine to get a wash like most versions of conserved energy. The machines needed to reverse entropy always lose more energy they get back; no perpetual motion. Entropy is an odd duck when it comes to potential energy, being more like a source of negative potential energy. It is not meant to be reversed, spontaneously, since it has to increase over time.

What is interesting is life and consciousness are both deigned to reverse entropy, sort of damming up the second law. When S gets lower, that makes the -TS term see a double negative, therefore this adds free energy to the organic matrix, that is then subject to an entropy increase. Life sort of sort of uses the principle of no perpetual motion, which loses more energy than it get back. Life makes things less complex, which causes the 2nd law to become even more complex, since there is no perpetual motion; evolution. Negative potential energy is part of life and forward change and catalysis.

I think you address the duality between potential and actual in science well, especially with Schrödinger's cat as an example. However, I believe the concept of something "existing and not existing at the same time" goes beyond statistical uncertainty and touches on deeper discussions about the nature of reality and how we interpret data. I understand that statistical science deals with probabilities, but that doesn't mean everything is equally uncertain — I see that some predictions and theories have more solid foundations.

Moreover, I believe the transcendent should also be taken into account. I draw on Kant’s philosophy, where he argued that there are aspects of reality beyond our sensory and empirical capacity to fully grasp. He referred to these as "noumena," things-in-themselves that we cannot directly know but that affect the phenomenal world we perceive. I think considering the transcendent is essential because it reminds us that science, while incredibly powerful, has its limits, and I believe there are dimensions of existence that can't be fully captured by purely empirical methods.

 

[Betho_br]

An interesting speculation but I have some doubts. Flat people would notice a 3D being if one came into their world because a 3D being inhabits also the two dimensions of 2D. We would also notice a 4D being. Furthermore, no one has ever met any flat or dot beings.

I see this as a putely abstract mathematical concept.

I understand your point of view, but I think the concept of beings from other dimensions can be explored more broadly, especially if we consider mediumistic experiences. Mediums claim to interact with realities or beings that go beyond our three-dimensional perception. If we compare this to the idea of a fourth-dimensional being, for example, these experiences could be seen as possible interactions with something outside of our physical ability to perceive.

While we've never "met" two-dimensional beings, the experiences reported by mediums suggest that there may be realities or beings that transcend our perception, much like how a three-dimensional being would exist in a two-dimensional world. Of course, these experiences are subjective and often involve spiritual interpretations, but they open up speculation that there are layers of reality we can't measure or observe directly through conventional scientific methods.

 

[PearlSeeker]

I understand your point of view, but I think the concept of beings from other dimensions can be explored more broadly, especially if we consider mediumistic experiences. Mediums claim to interact with realities or beings that go beyond our three-dimensional perception. If we compare this to the idea of a fourth-dimensional being, for example, these experiences could be seen as possible interactions with something outside of our physical ability to perceive.

While we've never "met" two-dimensional beings, the experiences reported by mediums suggest that there may be realities or beings that transcend our perception, much like how a three-dimensional being would exist in a two-dimensional world. Of course, these experiences are subjective and often involve spiritual interpretations, but they open up speculation that there are layers of reality we can't measure or observe directly through conventional scientific methods.

I am aware of mediums (I've met one here on RF) and I believe sensing spirits and OBE could be true I just don't think that the additional dimension of space is the best or only explanation. Maybe there are parallel dimensions...

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Sorry I’m late.

Question: Can something exist and not exist at the same time ?

Answer: No.



You’re welcome!

 

[Maninthemiddle]

In the realms of quantum mechanics and certain branches of philosophy, the notion of a paradoxical or ambiguous state of existence has been the subject of inquiry. For instance, quantum phenomena, such as the behavior of subatomic particles, have been associated with paradoxical states, including superposition, entanglement, and wave-particle duality, which challenge classical notions of existence and non-existence.

In the context of philosophical and metaphysical discourse, the consideration of paradoxical or ambiguous states of existence often raises fundamental questions about the nature of reality, perception, and the limits of human understanding. Explorations of paradoxes and contradictions serve as provocations for rethinking assumptions and expanding the frontiers of knowledge.

The consideration of paradoxical dualities and ambiguous states of existence invites a re-examination of fundamental assumptions about reality, presenting an opportunity for philosophical, scientific, and metaphysical reflection on the nature of existence and the limits of human understanding.

 

[The Hammer]

Yes.


The imagination, dreams, fiction. Etc

All things that exist. But don't.

 

[Koldo]

Energy is the capacity (potential) to do work. Work is a transfer of internal energy - in one system the energy decreases in other it increases. When bonfire produces heat what you experience is work - actualization of energy's capacity.

"The internal energy of a system decreases when it works on its surroundings. The system’s internal energy increases when work is done on a system. The energy change from work, like heat, always happens as part of a process: a system can do work but not contain it."

Internal Energy Work

Internal energy is the energy stored inside the system as a result of the random movements of the particles and the potential energies of the molecules as a result of their orientation.

unacademy.com

If work is the actualization of energy's capacity, how do you reconcile that with the first law of thermodynamics?

 

[PearlSeeker]

If work is the actualization of energy's capacity, how do you reconcile that with the first law of thermodynamics?

What is there to reconcile?

 

[Koldo]

What is there to reconcile?

Energy can not be destroyed.
You say that (all) energy is potential.
Then it follows that energy itself can never become something else that is actual. To be potential, though, is to be possibly eventually actual.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Which invalidates your earlier assertion that “to exist as potential is to not exist”.

You referred to potential and kinetic energy. These are conserved. As the ball drops, its potential energy becomes kinetic energy. The sum is constant. Something is changing form. And that energy can change form again according to E=mc2

A more concrete example would be water and ice. As ice, it's potential liquid water. As liquid water, it's potential ice. The total number of H2O molecules doesn't change as a phase change occurs during freezing or melting. That number is conserved.

So what exists in that example? Water? Sometimes. Ice? Sometimes. H2O molecules? As long as they don't undergo hydrolysis, yes, they are conserved. And if they do? Then it's the hydrogen and oxygen atoms that are conserved.

As ice, which is potential liquid water, melts and becomes actual liquid water, it does what potential energy does when it transforms to kinetic energy. Potential energy is lost and kinetic energy is gained, but energy is conserved.

It's very easy to get lost in the language.

Actually, being conscious of something allows it to exist or not exist at the same time. For example, the Eiffel Tower doesn't exists for dogs

You are using the word exist here to mean exist in conscious content. The tower exists outside of both minds, but the concept only exists in minds that have can conceptualize and have knowledge of the tower. The sight of the tower can exist in the dog's mind if it is picked up and pointed at the tower because the tower exists and is visible to dogs.

Elsewhere, you wrote, "the bugs are still unaware of the car, so to bugs, cars do not exist." Same answer. Cars and bugs both exist outside of minds, but not necessarily as concepts in minds. It the cars didn't exist, they would not kill the bugs, but since cars and bugs both exist and occasionally collide, the bugs will die even if they never conceived of a car. That's what it means to exist - to occupy a time and place and be able to interact with other things that also exist, which can be totally mindless like a planet orbiting a star.

DNA existed before we had a concept of it. It occupied a time and place and interacted with other existing things such as ribosomes before we knew that. Today, both DNA and the concept of DNA exist, and yes, an idea also has a time and place and through a body can affect surrounding reality and be affected (changed) by experiencing that reality.

One more example. The ideas of a wolf and a werewolves have exist inhuman minds, but only the wolves have a referent that also exists. Nevertheless, the idea of a werewolf can modify the reality of one holding it, maybe causing a youngster to quiver in the dark.

If a tree falls in the forest, and no one hears it, does it make a sound? If by 'sound' you mean 'acoustic vibrations in the air', the answer is 'Yes. ' But if by 'sound' you mean an auditory experience in the brain, the answer is 'No. Does the sound exist? Yes and No

It looks like @Koldo addressed equivocation already. I'll continue with that:

If you call both acoustic vibration in the air and the experience of sound by a conscious agent converting that energy into a psychological experience by the same word, then you can commit an equivocation fallacy using that word. We can avoid that by using different terms for distinct concepts.

Likewise with the tower. If we're careful to distinguish between existing outside of minds and inside of minds, we avoid equivocation. It is important when considering distinct concepts to distinguish between them when using language.

We see this problem in religious discussions when the word faith is used to mean both justified and unjustified belief. After explaining that I don't believe anything by faith to the believer, he might say that I have faith that my car will start the next time I turn the key. That's when I have to make the distinction between a belief resulting from experience, or justified belief, and one not acquired from experience, like a god belief.

At that point, I might start changing "faith" in the latter sense to "religious-type faith" or "unjustified belief" to make the distinction clear lest we encounter equivocation fallacy such as "We both believe by faith." He'll add that I expect the car to start but might be wrong, and I'll agree, but then point out that my belief is correct: "I expect the car to start whenever I test it but am aware that some of the time it hasn't and might not the next time it is tested."

Here's another one Consider a blind person standing outside. The blind person does not see any light, so does that mean that there is not daylight? Does one have to be sighted for there to be light?

Same answer. There are photons in the visible (for sighted people) spectrum that are being experienced as light by some and not by others. There is light energy for all, but vision only for some.

You reminded me of a song. At 4:50 in this recording, you'll hear "You may be weak and you may be blind, but even a blind man knows when the sun is shining"

 

[PearlSeeker]

Energy can not be destroyed.
You say that (all) energy is potential.
Then it follows that energy itself can never become something else that is actual. To be potential, though, is to be possibly eventually actual.

Energy itself is a property that is actually existing (for example an object is actually moving). What is potentially existing is the work that can be done. The work becomes actual when energy is transfered or transformed. For example a moving object can potentially move another object, produce heat ... Total energy of an isolated system is constant.

 

[Madsaac]

You referred to potential and kinetic energy. These are conserved. As the ball drops, its potential energy becomes kinetic energy. The sum is constant. Something is changing form. And that energy can change form again according to E=mc2

A more concrete example would be water and ice. As ice, it's potential liquid water. As liquid water, it's potential ice. The total number of H2O molecules doesn't change as a phase change occurs during freezing or melting. That number is conserved.

So what exists in that example? Water? Sometimes. Ice? Sometimes. H2O molecules? As long as they don't undergo hydrolysis, yes, they are conserved. And if they do? Then it's the hydrogen and oxygen atoms that are conserved.

As ice, which is potential liquid water, melts and becomes actual liquid water, it does what potential energy does when it transforms to kinetic energy. Potential energy is lost and kinetic energy is gained, but energy is conserved.

It's very easy to get lost in the language.

You are using the word exist here to mean exist in conscious content. The tower exists outside of both minds, but the concept only exists in minds that have can conceptualize and have knowledge of the tower. The sight of the tower can exist in the dog's mind if it is picked up and pointed at the tower because the tower exists and is visible to dogs.

Elsewhere, you wrote, "the bugs are still unaware of the car, so to bugs, cars do not exist." Same answer. Cars and bugs both exist outside of minds, but not necessarily as concepts in minds. It the cars didn't exist, they would not kill the bugs, but since cars and bugs both exist and occasionally collide, the bugs will die even if they never conceived of a car. That's what it means to exist - to occupy a time and place and be able to interact with other things that also exist, which can be totally mindless like a planet orbiting a star.

DNA existed before we had a concept of it. It occupied a time and place and interacted with other existing things such as ribosomes before we knew that. Today, both DNA and the concept of DNA exist, and yes, an idea also has a time and place and through a body can affect surrounding reality and be affected (changed) by experiencing that reality.

One more example. The ideas of a wolf and a werewolves have exist inhuman minds, but only the wolves have a referent that also exists. Nevertheless, the idea of a werewolf can modify the reality of one holding it, maybe causing a youngster to quiver in the dark.

It looks like @Koldo addressed equivocation already. I'll continue with that:

If you call both acoustic vibration in the air and the experience of sound by a conscious agent converting that energy into a psychological experience by the same word, then you can commit an equivocation fallacy using that word. We can avoid that by using different terms for distinct concepts.

Likewise with the tower. If we're careful to distinguish between existing outside of minds and inside of minds, we avoid equivocation. It is important when considering distinct concepts to distinguish between them when using language.

We see this problem in religious discussions when the word faith is used to mean both justified and unjustified belief. After explaining that I don't believe anything by faith to the believer, he might say that I have faith that my car will start the next time I turn the key. That's when I have to make the distinction between a belief resulting from experience, or justified belief, and one not acquired from experience, like a god belief.

At that point, I might start changing "faith" in the latter sense to "religious-type faith" or "unjustified belief" to make the distinction clear lest we encounter equivocation fallacy such as "We both believe by faith." He'll add that I expect the car to start but might be wrong, and I'll agree, but then point out that my belief is correct: "I expect the car to start whenever I test it but am aware that some of the time it hasn't and might not the next time it is tested."

Same answer. There are photons in the visible (for sighted people) spectrum that are being experienced as light by some and not by others. There is light energy for all, but vision only for some.

You reminded me of a song. At 4:50 in this recording, you'll hear "You may be weak and you may be blind, but even a blind man knows when the sun is shining"

Some good thoughts there and love the song

 

[anotherneil]

No.

 

[RestlessSoul]

If work is the actualization of energy's capacity, how do you reconcile that with the first law of thermodynamics?

Mass and energy are equivalent (e=mc2). So the potential energy in a massive object is present as mass.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Energy can not be destroyed.
You say that (all) energy is potential.
Then it follows that energy itself can never become something else that is actual. To be potential, though, is to be possibly eventually actual.

See Lavoisier’s law (which relates to chemical reactions, and sounds better in French)

“Rien ne se perd, rien ne se cree, tout se transform.”

Nothing is lost, nothing is created, everything is transformed.