But they do exist as concepts of reality. Like beauty or justice, for example, exist as concepts of reality.
What are concepts though? They are abstract constructs meant to represent something. These abstractions can be used to represent physically existing things in reality or they can refer to other, more complex abstract constructions built of multiple constructs. These more complex abstractions would be considered concepts.
Abstractions have no properties or characteristics in and of themselves. They are simply representations. The set of what can be represented is infinite and undefined, really only limited by our capacity to imagine them. There are no rules of association in how abstract representations can be used and combined to create concepts except as defined within the boundaries and rules governing an abstract system, systems we create for organizing and using abstractions in a useful and meaningful way. Examples of such systems include mathematics and human language systems.
These abstractions of representation, once established/created/invented, can be encoded and stored in many physical forms to enable us to share these abstractions. For example, our abstract references can be encoded in body movements, such as pointing, they can be encoded in sounds and verbal utterances. They can be encoded in symbol, picture, or alphabetic systems. But first and foremost, they are encoded and stored within the physical neuro-physiological systems that comprise the central nervous system of organisms that use abstract representations.
Well, clearly they are possible, as they are occurring. And clearly they do exist as concepts of the reality of our existence. So why aren't these registering in your mind as existential possibilities when they are, in fact, existential realities? What is blinding or blocking you from recognizing this?
What does it mean to say that a purely analytic abstraction is possible or occurring? Using my obnoxious primmer on abstractions above, let's explore that question.
If I have two abstract representations that point to two physically existing things in reality, the first being an African lion and the second being a golden eagle, I can, in my mind, break that abstraction into parts, creating separate abstract representations for those parts, be they head, legs, tail, etc. None of these representations has *any* physical properties or limits on association with other abstractions. They are not independently real and existent except as representations, not the actual thing or category of thing it is meant to represent.
I can thus imagine the representation of the lion, remove the head from that representation and replace it with that of the abstract representation of the head of an eagle, add the representation of eagle wings to the lion body representation, and replace the representation of lion fore-paws with that of eagle feet and talons. I have now created, in my mind, an abstraction that no longer references anything that physically exists, but is composed of representations of things that do physically exist, lion bodies, eagle heads, etc. It would now be useful to create an abstract reference for this new, purely abstract creation so that I may easily refer to it without having to continually “rebuild it” in explanation. I therefore assign the name label ‘Griffin’ to my creation, and once I share the label and its construction definition to my friends, we can simply use the abstract concept label ‘Griffin’ to reference and talk about it.
I can also add other properties to this creation if I wish, like the ability to shoot laser beams out of its eyes, make it impervious to fire, give it a sentient mind comparable to that of human beings with the added feature of telepathic communication, etc. As pure abstractions, there is no restriction on the association of abstractions unless we create some rules or a complete abstract system of boundaries, rules, etc.
For the ‘Griffin’ to be an “existential possibility” in the physical world of reality, it would have to comport with and conform to the limitations and constraint governing the properties and characteristics of physical reality. This is physically impossible, as one cannot simply scale up a real eagle head to proportionally fit a real lion's body, scale up real functional eagle wings, etc.
Could science advance in the future such that one could create an organism with an eagle-like head, a lion-like body, and at most non-functional set of wings (due to limitations imposed aerodynamic requirements to be functional). Perhaps, but that would not be our abstract analytic construct of ‘Griffin’ we created, because ‘Griffin’ was not coined to represent an actual physically existent thing. The creators of some futuristic genetically modified monster can label their creation with whatever abstract label they wish. If they wish to co-op the name label ‘Griffin’, perhaps as an homage to the imaginative person who first created the abstract analytic construct, that is perfectly fine.
The point of all of this is to say that merely making fanciful associations of abstract constructs in no way confers nor enables existential possibility as a physically existent thing, or as an objectively existing thing outside of, and wholly independent of abstraction.
Why not [entertain the possibility of purely abstract entities actually existing independent of thought], when they are clearly a significant part of our existential experience?
Purely analytic abstract constructs and concepts do play a significant role in our existential experience. Things like currency valuation, governmental entities, ethical and legal systems are all indispensable in our large, complex, modern societies. Shared and accepted abstractions affect how people behave and interact with each other.
Why then reject the multitude of entities that have been claimed to exist over millennia? I reject them because they are created within artificial abstract “worlds” claimed to represent actual reality, to be synthetic to, and correspond with actual reality, objective and independent of abstractions of the mind. They do not.
Why are imaginary “actual” realities a problem? They are a problem because, as pure abstractions, they are infinite and boundless as to what they can be said to be and said to contain. They can be said to contain an infinite number of “realms” beyond the mere “physical”. They can assign properties to these realms that define them as immune from perception and detection of any kind such that they are impossible to be verified. Once the undetectable realm is created, it can be filled with whatever entities one likes, in any number and with whatever properties or characteristics one might imagine and claim that it is all objectively “real and existent”. These entities, once created, can be said to have ownership over us and that demand specific behaviors and actions from us, demands enforced, not by the claimed entity itself, but by the physically existing adherents of the artificially constructed reality.
Now, once the artificially constructed abstraction of imperceptible realms is accepted as “real”, anyone and everyone can project whatever they wish into this artificial construct, all of which are now immune from any type of evaluation or confirmation.
We are all familiar with the conflicts that arise between competing artificial abstract realities that have fixed and immutable requirements for human beings. Adoption of such fixed and immutable artificial “realities” creates rigidity in society that leads to stagnation and a decreased ability to adapt to a continually changing societal environment and world.
I much prefer dynamic and progressive abstract social systems that are grounded in *actual* Reality, the objective reality independent of thought, that are entered into by mutual agreement and that have the mechanisms to adeptly and successfully adapt to the reality of continual change.
