Can something exist and not exist at the same time ?

[mikkel_the_dane]

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

So what is your first post about?

 

[Massimo2002]

But is it possible that there is no change?

No everything changes over time unless God Exists And Is Outside of time/change.

 

[Massimo2002]

This is a sematic issue, not a philosophical one. It isn't possible for the same definition of exist. You're not using the same definition though, one being "physically present in a defined location" and the other "within the scope of your senses and awareness".

No you are wrong this is a very philosophical question.

 

[Massimo2002]

Yes it can, depending on the perspective.

Below is straight off the internet.

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

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?

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

Cars probably do not exist to bugs.

 

[ChristineM]

Cars probably do not exist to bugs.

That would explain the mess on my windscreen

 

[Massimo2002]

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.

None of what you said disproves subjectivism.

 

[LuisDantas]

Cars probably do not exist to bugs.

Do you mean that bugs can't understand cars?

Cars are real enough to bugs when they collide with each other.

 

[Koldo]

In each case, the connotation of potential is distinct from actual.

Source?

 

[Koldo]

So what is your first post about?

Asking what premises led to a certain conclusion.

 

[LuisDantas]

None of what you said disproves subjectivism.

Is that what we are meant to trackle in this thread? I did not know.

Subjective perception exists, and it is at least difficult to disprove subjectivism as a thesis.

At an extreme, you could consider solipsism even.

But that isn't necessarily an important subject matter. Much of reality is objective enough.

In practice we tend to have more problem with active denialism and neglect than with subjectivism as such, don't you think?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Asking what premises led to a certain conclusion.

Yes and if that is considered a logical deduction, then it leads to valid and sound.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Source?

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From around 1840 scientists sought to define and understand energy and work.[5] The term "potential energy" was coined by William Rankine a Scottish engineer and physicist in 1853 as part of a specific effort to develop terminology.[3] He chose the term as part of the pair "actual" vs "potential" going back to work by Aristotle. In his 1867 discussion of the same topic Rankine describes potential energy as ‘energy of configuration’ in contrast to actual energy as 'energy of activity'.

 

[HonestJoe]

No you are wrong this is a very philosophical question.

When you declare that someone else is wrong, it is usually expected that you make some kind of effort to explain or demonstrate how and why their wrong.

Regardless, I didn't say there isn't a philosophical question in there, only that the specific issue of the example you gave is semantic. There is a fundamental difference between humans being physically incapable of directly observing a extant phenomena and you not currently being able to see a cat because it's hiding in the bushes or behind a wall.

 

[Koldo]

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From around 1840 scientists sought to define and understand energy and work.[5] The term "potential energy" was coined by William Rankine a Scottish engineer and physicist in 1853 as part of a specific effort to develop terminology.[3] He chose the term as part of the pair "actual" vs "potential" going back to work by Aristotle. In his 1867 discussion of the same topic Rankine describes potential energy as ‘energy of configuration’ in contrast to actual energy as 'energy of activity'.

Ok. Let me quote the rest too

"From around 1840 scientists sought to define and understand energy and work.[5] The term "potential energy" was coined by William Rankine a Scottish engineer and physicist in 1853 as part of a specific effort to develop terminology.[3] He chose the term as part of the pair "actual" vs "potential" going back to work by Aristotle. In his 1867 discussion of the same topic Rankine describes potential energy as ‘energy of configuration’ in contrast to actual energy as 'energy of activity'. Also in 1867, William Thomson introduced "kinetic energy" as the opposite of "potential energy", asserting that all actual energy took the form of ⁠1/2⁠mv2. Once this hypothesis became widely accepted, the term "actual energy" gradually faded.[4]"

And the reason for that is... because both potential energy and kinetic energy are actual energies.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

And the reason for that is... because both potential energy and kinetic energy are actual energies.

Then explain that.

 

[wellwisher]

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.

This topic leads to a debate since it tends to assumed we should define actuality with time stopped, instead of also assuming time potential for actuality, that spans a period of time, where both potential and actuality appear as various ratios.

The fertilized ovum, unless aborted, is the starting state of an entire lifetime. At each stage of life, we have an actuality, fetus, but also the potential to reach the next stage of life; baby and beyond. It is like reading a book. As you read the first few chapters and stop for the day, the story has both potential and actuality, but full actuality will not be known until the last chapter.

This discussion often stops time at an instant and then tries to decide if a given state of actuality is met or not. If we do that many things that are real will disappear. For example, photons of energy have a given frequency. If we stop time, frequency takes a period of time to develop, is made void. At any point in time, not all photons that exist, in time, will appear to exist. But if we are open to time intervals than more things become partially actual.

In the Schrödinger's cat thought experiment, the time interval is connected to waiting for a nuclear decay, which then triggers a mechanism to break a vial of poison, which kills the cat. Since you do not know when the decay will occur, the inevitable end may or may not have occurred. One is between the start and finish states of the experiment, where both states appear possible. Once you know the time potential or the interval of the experiment, which is interval of time between potential and actuality, then the middle is a matter of the ratios of potential to actuality. Even the poison may or may not kill the cat in an instant, but needs an interval of time. But still actual is in the cards.

Casino science and math has potential but is still not fully rational; actual with all the potential used up. We cannot use that theory to make accurate future predictions of evolution; actual real time evidence. It can only tell us things that have evolved or have the potential to evolve. This is due to use of the black box of statistics. How can you see the movement in time, if the box stays closed? Science needs an upgrade.

Below is an effect called motion blur. The still picture has stopped time. In this case the action speed is faster than the shutter speed. The difference in time, with time stopped, become uncertainty in position. Time and space are connected. Actuality is often decided by the appearance in space. with time stopped; tangible clue. But if all the time potential is not used up there is uncertainty; black box science. The evidence of evolution is based on actually, and not the time potential of intermediate states, which comes out fuzzy with that approach. In that sense the bias of this type od science is why there is reflex to define actuality with time stopped.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Ok. Let me quote the rest too

"From around 1840 scientists sought to define and understand energy and work.[5] The term "potential energy" was coined by William Rankine a Scottish engineer and physicist in 1853 as part of a specific effort to develop terminology.[3] He chose the term as part of the pair "actual" vs "potential" going back to work by Aristotle. In his 1867 discussion of the same topic Rankine describes potential energy as ‘energy of configuration’ in contrast to actual energy as 'energy of activity'. Also in 1867, William Thomson introduced "kinetic energy" as the opposite of "potential energy", asserting that all actual energy took the form of ⁠1/2⁠mv2. Once this hypothesis became widely accepted, the term "actual energy" gradually faded.[4]"

And the reason for that is... because both potential energy and kinetic energy are actual energies.

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

 

[Koldo]

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

Potential energy doesn't exist as 'potential'. If it can be said to exist at all, it is an actual energy (it exists in the actuality).

 

[PearlSeeker]

Ok. Let me quote the rest too

"From around 1840 scientists sought to define and understand energy and work.[5] The term "potential energy" was coined by William Rankine a Scottish engineer and physicist in 1853 as part of a specific effort to develop terminology.[3] He chose the term as part of the pair "actual" vs "potential" going back to work by Aristotle. In his 1867 discussion of the same topic Rankine describes potential energy as ‘energy of configuration’ in contrast to actual energy as 'energy of activity'. Also in 1867, William Thomson introduced "kinetic energy" as the opposite of "potential energy", asserting that all actual energy took the form of ⁠1/2⁠mv2. Once this hypothesis became widely accepted, the term "actual energy" gradually faded.[4]"

And the reason for that is... because both potential energy and kinetic energy are actual energies.

Greek word (that Aristotle used) for potential is "dunamis". It also means power or ability. Aristotle used two words for actuality - energeia and entelecheia. Energeia refers to something being at work (action) and entelecheia (entelechy) refers to completeness. Both mean something that is real in the fullest sense (not just potentially real).

Kinesis, translated as movement, motion, or in some contexts change, is also explained by Aristotle as a particular type of energeia. (Wiki)

In today's physics "energy" has a somewhat different meaning. It's a property that enables to do work. So it's actually an ability or a capacity. So all energies are potentials and are measured.

Kinetic energy - a body in motion has an ability to perform work through its motion (activity). Potential energy is an ability of a body to perform work due to its position or configuration. It was called potential because it's a property of an object in rest but capable of becoming active.

 

[PearlSeeker]

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.

"You can not step in the same river twice." (Heraclitus)

Aristotle distinguished between substantial changes (by having gained (or lost) the essential property) and accidental changes (the essential property remains unchanged). A substantial change is for example conception and dying. An example of accidental change: a tomato becomes red.

Substance theory - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Events and substances are among the categories of bring. Aristotle determined 10 categories: substance, quantity, quality, relation, place, time, position, action, affection.

Categories (Aristotle) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Theory of categories - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org