Tomef
Well-Known Member
Sure, that’s half of what I mean. The perception of the limb exists, the limb itself doesn’t.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Can something exist and not exist at the same time ?
- Thread starter Massimo2002
- Start date
-
- Tags
- philosophy
PearlSeeker
Well-Known Member
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yeah, it gets even worse in this text:
PearlSeeker
Well-Known Member
It's a matter of definition. In physics vibrations themselves are called sound. The aural experience of sound is also called sound.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
I am a nominalist...
Koldo
Outstanding Member
What model are you using specifically?
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
That paradox may be true at any given point in time, but not necessarily in the future. For example, the first iPhone came into actuality in 2007. In 2006, it had only the potential to exist beyond some early prototypes. It sometimes depends on a point in time, when potential becomes actual.
This is similar to potential energy that comes into actuality only when it has a way to become expressed. A rock leaning over the ledge has the potential to fall over the edge, but needs a way to catalyze the change to actuality; earthquake. The potential energy is not fully used until it hits the bottom and stops; final actuality.
This concept also hits to the heart the debate between will/choice versus determinism. Determinism would be like a timed loop that connects potential to actuality. Determinism hits play button for the movie, and the impulse will play out until the ending; completes actuality. If I get hungry and see images of my breakfast in my mind, that food may be destined to be eaten. Free will allows the option to pause the movie; pause the urge at say 50% of potentiality and 50% actuality, and leave it hanging in terms of actuality. I can pick it up later; if there is time to choose the detour, and also finish breakfast.
Say we have a have a robot that is printing a intricate 3-D circuit. After it starts, the 3-D model has both potential and actuality; some is done but still lots to go. A dynamic scenario that needs time to be fully expressed exists in ratios of potential/actual until there is only actual; done.
In the black box of statistics, theory remains partial way between potential and actual, unless it can be used to make future prediction; robot can finish. Until then, is still has potential, making it useful but not rationally predictive; actuality of the phenomena.
If it exists in one place, but not another, is that existing and not existing at the same time?
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, that depends on the physics that is used for time and place. I am not sure for modern physics, but it the classical sense the question is easy. A thing is at a place, so if it is not at another place it is not that thing at the other place and thus it only exists in one place as one given time in at least one sense.
Remember in practice a thing is at least 3 factors, given place, time and at least one sense. And it can't be and not be for the same space, time and sense.
Notice I have added space, because it was a hidden assumption in the first versions.
Last edited:
Madsaac
Active Member
Or a certain level of consciousness
Like the dog and the Eiffel Tower.
Maybe this is an area where God can exist? She may exist but our consciousness cannot detect it. Like the dog and the Eiffel Tower?
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
That sentient beings have varying degrees, or levels, of consciousness introduces the concept of phenomena beyond our limited perceptions, sure.
If consciousness has limitations, we can begin by asking what those limitations are. If we assume that consciousness depends on sense-data, then the limitations of the former are determined at least in part, by the limitations of the latter. We know, for example, that the human eye can detect only a tiny range of the electro magnetic spectrum. Those magnificent images of stellar nurseries captured by the Hubble and James Webb space telescopes, for example, record radiation that is not visible to the human eye. So there's far more going on all around us, than the eye can see.
It's likely that our senses are not the only constraint on perception, though. In order to project a representation of the world in which we can easily function, the mind or brain has to filter out much of the information picked up by the senses. If you've ever had the experience of sensory overload, when you freeze or stumble because you are overwhelmed by the intensity of sensations demanding your attention, you'll have encountered this phenomenon.
Consciousness, then, can be distracted by the senses. It can also be distracted by thought, and most especially by the illusion that thought is consciousness. By the simple expedient of closing our eyes and silencing our minds (simple, but not easy), we can experience for ourselves, a level of consciousness that is distracted neither by thought nor by sensory input. By this method we might hope to create the conditions from which spiritual, as opposed to physical or mental, experiences can emerge.
Consciousness, incidentally, is the most real thing I know. It's there every morning waiting for me, when I wake up.
PearlSeeker
Well-Known Member
PearlSeeker
Well-Known Member
I believe there are different realms of existence. Before I used the distinction potential/actual. Some potential things will necessary actually exist in the future. Some actual things will necessary cease to actually exist.
As you said we usually think that only actually existing things have real existence (existing in what we know as the "real world"). Sometimes this gets a little fuzzy. Think of the present moment for example. As soon as you think of it it's no longer there.
Madsaac
Active Member
So you're talking about time?
The 'present' exists and doesn't exists. So with the future?
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
We generally think of the world as being populated by objects, but it might make more sense to conceive of a world that is populated by events. Even the most solid objects are actually processes; a temporary convergence of phenomena remaining consistent for long enough to be recognisable as a rock, a tree, a cloud etc. But always changing, never fixed.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
And there is no such realm called 'potential'.
PearlSeeker
Well-Known Member
Yes. "Panta rei." It's like a river flowing from the future to the past. We stand still in the present facing the past. We can only learn from the past because we see past but don't see the future. Some part we can predict and some part is unpredictable.
Supposing there is free will, we are also making history - creatinging past with our decisions. This means the future is a river of possibilities and we hold a filter/dam in our hands and to some extent decide what will flow into the past.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
PearlSeeker
Well-Known Member
If potential doesn't exist then actual realm also doesn't exist. No day without night.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
If you can state the conclusion, you can show the premises that led to it.