Jump to content

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

But you are...

Am I needed to the route of the milky way to exist? I think it would be on the same path even there would be noone to observe it. 

No map is needed for a route to exist.

Edited by Conscious Energy
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I wish it was as simple as you seem to think. First off 'does' is the present tense of a verb. Are you including other tenses Will my dinner exist tomorrow ? Did the dinosaurs exis

That would be the same as arguing physics is BS, because there are so many crackpot theories (see our Speculations section). One should look what professional, academic philosophers have to say a

I can't see any relevence of your reply to my post whatsoever. This thread is about existence in general. Any sort of type of existence. Mostly something exists in one type of existence

Posted Images

3 minutes ago, Conscious Energy said:

Am I needed to the route of the milky way to exist? I think it would be on the same path even there would be noone to observe it. 

Philosophically speaking, of course you are; in that you exist and I think you are...

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Conscious Energy said:

Why the volume of space (which has a geometry) does not count as a physical thing?

Can you hand me a volume of space?

Geometry is not a physical thing, and when we say spacetime has a geometry, it’s saying there’s a particular coordinate system that is best suited to describe it. e.g. the shortest distance between two points is a straight line or a specific curve.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, swansont said:

Can you hand me a volume of space?

No. But I can measure and observe any point of it. If space would not be a physical thing I would not be able to observe and measure it. 

Can you give me a photon? Does a photon still exist even you are not able to hand me one?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Conscious Energy said:

No. But I can measure and observe any point of it. If space would not be a physical thing I would not be able to observe and measure it. 

Can you give me a photon? Does a photon still exist even you are not able to hand me one?

Yes, I can give you a photon. Just one would be difficult for technical reasons, not philosophical ones.

Length and time can be measured. Neither is a physical object.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, swansont said:

Time can be measured. Time is not a physical object.

True, Time is not a physical object but still a physical entity. If it would not be, there would be nothing to measure. 

Why the option to be able to hand over something, makes a thing physical?

Why the ability of measurement and observation is not enought to say that something physically exist?

Edited by Conscious Energy
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Conscious Energy said:

True, Time is not a physical object but still a physical entity. If it would not be, there would be nothing to measure. 

That’s circular reasoning. it’s physical because I can measure it, and I can measure it because it’s physical.

I can measure a shadow or a hole. Are these physical objects?

1 hour ago, Conscious Energy said:

Why the option to be able to hand over something, makes a thing physical?

It’s a simple, independent criterion.

 

1 hour ago, Conscious Energy said:

Why the ability of measurement and observation is not enought to say that something physically exist?

Because concepts are not physical objects.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, swansont said:

It’s a simple, independent criterion.

It helped me to understand the difference between a physical object and an event, like fire or lightning. You can hand me a cup of something ON fire, but not the fire itself, even though fire has several aspects that can be measured independently. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, swansont said:

I can measure a shadow or a hole. Are these physical objects?

If we count space as an object yes. If we count space as a physical entity yes. We can recognize the lack of light in the given space where the spadow appears. 

 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

It’s a simple, independent criterion.

Could you hand me gravity or a magnetic field? Are they physically absolutly non existent concept as well? 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Because concepts are not physical objects.

So space is a physically absolutely not existing concept too? 

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

You can hand me a cup of something ON fire, but not the fire itself, even though fire has several aspects that can be measured independently. 

Wiki: Flames consist primarily of carbon dioxide, water vapor, oxygen and nitrogen. If hot enough, the gases may become ionized to produce plasma.[3] Depending on the substances alight, and any impurities outside, the color of the flame and the fire's intensity will be different.

Isn´t it a technikal issue not to be albe to handle me fire, as a flame has physical attributes. Higher temperature in the flame of the participating gasses and matter. You could give me a group of high temperature nitrogen atoms for example with a special flamethrower. It will have a significant impact on the enviroment so it is not just a concept. 

Edited by Conscious Energy
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Conscious Energy said:

No. But I can measure and observe any point of it. If space would not be a physical thing I would not be able to observe and measure it. 

 

I don't see how you can measure or observe a point of space. You can observe or measure something that is in that point of space, but you cannot observe space itself. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I don't see how you can measure or observe a point of space. You can observe or measure something that is in that point of space, but you cannot observe space itself. 

Theoretically go to intergalactic space, recognize the shift of the Universe (if there is any in the intergalactic space) and adapt to it to be able to observe just one particular area. Create a vaccum and detour any incoming photon, wave etc with magnetic fields from the area. Than observe every point of this area.

The question I wonder would electrons still pop into existence in an area like this or that is absolutely impossible?

Edited by Conscious Energy
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Conscious Energy said:

If we count space as an object yes. If we count space as a physical entity yes. We can recognize the lack of light in the given space where the spadow appears. 

This makes sense to you.

The absence of light - literally no photons - is a physical object. The dirt in a hole is a physical object, and not having that dirt is also a physical object.

Defining everything as a physical object makes it simple, I guess.

Quote

 

Could you hand me gravity or a magnetic field? Are they physically absolutly non existent concept as well? 

Gravity is an interaction, not an object. Same with magnetism. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am tending towards the impression that the type of arguments represented by many (most? all?) of the posts in this thread is what leads to some people taking a dim view of philosophy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Area54 said:

I am tending towards the impression that the type of arguments represented by many (most? all?) of the posts in this thread is what leads to some people taking a dim view of philosophy.

Speaking for myself, not so much taking a "dim view", more an exercise in futility [sometimes] I'm in the Lawrence Krauss school.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Conscious Energy said:

Than observe every point of this area.

Can you please define "observe" in this context? What device would you use to 'observe' it? Not your eye of course as the eye detects electromagnetic radiation, not space. Not a magnetometer for similar reasons. What kind of device 'observes' space?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Conscious Energy said:

If we count space as an object yes. If we count space as a physical entity yes. We can recognize the lack of light in the given space where the spadow appears. 

But space is not an object, nor is it physical. Remembering of course something does not need to be physical to be real.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Conscious Energy said:

If hot enough,

Temperature is another measurable (thermal) property of matter, yet not something physical you can hand me a cup of. 

 

2 hours ago, Conscious Energy said:

Isn´t it a technikal issue not to be albe to handle me fire, as a flame has physical attributes. Higher temperature in the flame of the participating gasses and matter.

Technical in that you can't separate the flame from what's on fire. Try to remove the flame and you destroy the situation that allowed the event to happen in the first place. But I don't think this line of reasoning is helping you see why space itself is NOT a physical thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/27/2021 at 2:27 PM, Conscious Energy said:

Physically observable, mathematically expressible.

How about a galaxy 50 BLY that-away? Definitely mathematically expressible, but so is a perfect square. Neither is physically observable, at least not by us. It would be measurable ('observable' makes it sound like a life form is necessary) by something in that galaxy. Does that make a difference?

A relativist would say it doesn't exist relative to Earth and v-v. Existence is a relation (not an objective property) in such a view, which is precisely the attraction of it.

If you accept the principle of locality (no faster-than-light information transfer) in quantum physics, then it is a mistake to assert the specific distant galaxy exists at all. It leads to contradictions per Bell's theorem. That throws quite the wrench into the idea of objective existence.

 

Side note: I agree that a route doesn't require my existence. My sister doesn't exist, and yet the route does. Of course, expressed as a relation, the route to the Milky Way doesn't exist to my sister, so go figure.

 

Edited by Halc
Link to post
Share on other sites

How about: The state of being  present independent of an observer. I see a tree, which may or may not exist, but if two people see the tree, the likelihood of it existing can be confirmed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I note from all these replies that my original contention that the definition and meaning of existence depends upon context has been borne out.

This would further imply that there are multiple definitions of the word (as with many words in the dictionary).

This bring me to Alex's second question.

On 3/27/2021 at 4:07 PM, Alex Mercer said:

Does it even make sense to define 'non-existence'?

Non existence must now be much easier to define, at least for words with multiple meanings, or for complex statements.

Here are some examples.

A single meaning for the word (insert chosen multple definition word) does not exist.

In the recipe for shepherd's pie, beef mince does not exist.

 

Ain't complexity wunderful ?

 

Edited by studiot
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Area54 said:

I am tending towards the impression that the type of arguments represented by many (most? all?) of the posts in this thread is what leads to some people taking a dim view of philosophy.

That would be the same as arguing physics is BS, because there are so many crackpot theories (see our Speculations section).

One should look what professional, academic philosophers have to say about 'existence', not at philosophical 'hip shots' of people who are not knowledgeable about what philosophy has to say about the topic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/28/2021 at 12:07 AM, swansont said:

But does math exist?

Math exists merely in Virtuality. In Actuality , it does not. More broadly speaking , things of the nature of concepts do exist ; however , only in virtuality. Virtuality underlies the cosmos of  "actualizations".  Math is not unlike virtual particles in modern physics. They do exist and they do not exist. they are not fully actualized  the way , say , electrons are. This is because our world can in no way (continue to) exist outside of its own  expressions. It is expressivity that brings things into the realm of existence. Otherwise , we shall have a very dry abstract ontology. As a result, we can't necessarily consider all potential beliefs to exist in any sort of psychological universe at the same time. And we can't perceive a mental calculation based on one particular group of perceptions, with the same state space ; as applied to a mental measurement in conjunction with another group of beliefs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

Math exists merely in Virtuality. In Actuality , it does not.

So you are asserting that processes do not exist in actuality ?

Mathematics is a process not a product.

Edited by studiot
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

So you are asserting that processes do not exist in actuality ?

Mathematics is a process not a product.

Math is both process and product. I am NOT suggesting that processes do not exist in actuality. Any process is deemed to possess an epi"phenomenological  existence prior and  exterior to the form of its own expression. Expressivity brings products out of processes. Content is accurately conveyed through expression, which re-presents it at a contextual distance. This facilitates contact, which is described as a reliable exchange of contents transmitted at a reasonable distance from their intended destination (brought over into the realm of Actuality). As a result, content is both the cause and the effect of communicative expression: it is both the external cause and the pledge of authenticity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

Math is both process and product. I am NOT suggesting that processes do not exist in actuality. Any process is deemed to possess an epi"phenomenological  existence prior and  exterior to the form of its own expression. Expressivity brings products out of processes. Content is accurately conveyed through expression, which re-presents it at a contextual distance. This facilitates contact, which is described as a reliable exchange of contents transmitted at a reasonable distance from their intended destination (brought over into the realm of Actuality). As a result, content is both the cause and the effect of communicative expression: it is both the external cause and the pledge of authenticity.

Oh !

🙃

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.