Jump to content

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Alex Mercer said:

I don't really mean contemplating whether a hole or space exists. I am asking more like WHAT IS existence. Does that still need context because I am talking about the word pretty much and how humans define 'existence'. So that is why I say existence is what we can observe and say that is 'it' existing. 

Being (Existence) is the property that we , human beings ,  derive from "beings" (=Extants). 

There are only becoming Haecceities. In other words , Existence is merely one of  our own categories of cogitating. Versus , for example , Non-being.  Non-being is also another category of human thinking more akin to metaphor.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 98
  • 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

2 minutes ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

Being (Existence) is the property that we , human beings ,  derive from "beings" (=Extants). 

There are only becoming Haecceities. In other words , Existence is merely one of  our own categories of cogitating. Versus , for example , Non-being.  Non-being is also another category of human thinking more akin to metaphor.

That's like suggesting a bridge doesn't cross the same river twice...

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Alex Mercer said:

I am asking more like WHAT IS existence.

'Existence' is a word with 9 letters. And if you want to know about the concept behind the word, I think I showed that it depends on the context: existence of what? If you want a general definition you would get something like 'something exists if it can play a role in somebody's life'. And here you see something else: 'existence' is the substantivation of the verb 'to exist'. So the existence of what are you interested in?

To give again another example: space and time. One could call them the 'stage' on which causal processes occur (Pity that Markus is away now, he surely had to say something about it from the viewpoint of general relativity...). But they themselves do not exist in the same way as physical objects or processes exist in space and time. Space does not punch a ball, neither does time. Asking for THE general, meaning of EXISTENCE, leads to nothing other than all kind of philosophical apories, getting people confused. And if you insist on one meaning, it will lead to some bad metaphysics.

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

However there is one thing I would like your opinion on, though you perhaps missed it,

The link I drew between existence and time.

Sorry, I am too lazy to look up the exact place where you made the link. But I think only for some categories existence and time are related. Surely for physical processes, but it becomes difficult when you think about laws of nature, and then that which I left out: mathematics. And then think about time itself. There you could get in a definitional loop.

(And if this does not fit to your link, then please refer to it, or say it again, maybe a little bit different after my exposé.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Eise said:

'something exists if it can play a role in somebody's life'.

If something is existing, it will be, independent it plays a role in somebody’s life or not. Like a photon from the edge of the Universe we not yet detected but we will in a half a year time.

31 minutes ago, Eise said:

If you want a general definition

Something to be. 

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

If something is existing, it will be, independent it plays a role in somebody’s life or not. Like a photon from the edge of the Universe we not yet detected but we will in a half a year time.

Something to be. 

1__ Things do NOT exist for playing a role in human beings' lives. 

2__Something to be. "  is not unlike a  vicious-circle-definition.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

28 minutes ago, Eise said:

Sorry, I am too lazy to look up the exact place where you made the link. But I think only for some categories existence and time are related. Surely for physical processes, but it becomes difficult when you think about laws of nature, and then that which I left out: mathematics. And then think about time itself. There you could get in a definitional loop.

(And if this does not fit to your link, then please refer to it, or say it again, maybe a little bit different after my exposé.)

 

Here are the first couple of times (pun intended) I mentioned it.

On 3/31/2021 at 3:21 PM, studiot said:

It also serves as an example  of the point I am still trying to make.

This is that some existences can only said to be extant if the extend over a period of time.

Burning is a chemical reaction and the house burning occurs over a period of time so for many istants it is obvious that there can be said

"to be a burning house" (present tense).

However for some chemical reactions for example the reaction between two molecules, say hydrogen and iodine, the situation is different.

The beginning of the reaction is somewhere along the trajectories of the two molecules.
If they collide they may coalesce to some intermediate compound
This itself may either decay back to the original reactants or new products may fly forth.

If they decay back, can a chemical reaction be said to exist ?

If products are formed how much of the beginning the middle and the end do you include in the statement

A chemical process takes place (ie exists) between the beginning the middle and the end ?

On 3/30/2021 at 12:09 PM, studiot said:

 

Processes present an interesting aspect of existence.

That of time.

Finite processes have at least a beginning a middle and an end.

Unless these all occur simultaneously so the process is independent of time, the question arises

"Can the process ever be said to exist ?"

This is because only part of the process 'exists' at any one point in time ie at any present.

 

 

What I am trying to describe is the notion that just as we might say "There exists a road from Ghent to Aix" , ie it has a spread in space, we should consider how something exists in time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Eise said:

another example: space and time. One could call them the 'stage' on which causal processes occur (Pity that Markus is away now, he surely had to say something about it from the viewpoint of general relativity...). But they themselves do not exist in the same way as physical objects or processes exist in space and time. Space does not punch a ball, neither does time.

Space and Time do not exist the same way as physical objects, true, but they do exist. Further more they exist for anything ever have been existing in the past, present and future

11 minutes ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

1__ Things do NOT exist for playing a role in human beings' lives. 

That is what I said as well...

Edited by Conscious Energy
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

Being (Existence) is the property that we , human beings ,  derive from "beings" (=Extants). 

There are only becoming Haecceities. In other words , Existence is merely one of  our own categories of cogitating. Versus , for example , Non-being.  Non-being is also another category of human thinking more akin to metaphor.

I see two problems in your deep philosophical analysis of existence.

Firstly the difficulty of using the formal structure of Philosophy to analyse something more basic than any of the concepts you employ.
This is like trying to count before you have any idea what a number is.

Secondly the notion that you seem to be propounding that existence is merely a property bestowed by the human mind.
Things are known to have existed before there were any humans. Further humans are still discovering the existence of things that now human has had in his mind before the discovery.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, studiot said:

I see two problems in your deep philosophical analysis of existence.

Firstly the difficulty of using the formal structure of Philosophy to analyse something more basic than any of the concepts you employ.
This is like trying to count before you have any idea what a number is.

Secondly the notion that you seem to be propounding that existence is merely a property bestowed by the human mind.
Things are known to have existed before there were any humans. Further humans are still discovering the existence of things that now human has had in his mind before the discovery.

Firstly : Numbers possess only "ideatic" Existence,,,, But : things numbered have OBJECTIVE Existence .............. 

 

Secondly : Things exist totally independently from human beings. We humans have do not bestow Existence upon things that already exist. It was Senior Member Eise who thought so idealistically AND It was me who ventured to , most respectfully , refute his statements when I wrote above :  

image.thumb.png.483a3c0aa7ae52c305ccc062939e50a8.png

 

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

Firstly : Numbers possess only "ideatic" Existence,,,, But : things numbered have OBJECTIVE Existence .............. 

 

Secondly : Things exist totally independently from human beings. We humans have do not bestow Existence upon things that already exist. It was Senior Member Eise who thought so idealistically AND It was me who ventured to , most respectfully , refute his statements when I wrote above :  

image.thumb.png.483a3c0aa7ae52c305ccc062939e50a8.png

 

1)  I think you completely misunderstood my point.

 

2) Possibly I misunderstood the second part of your reply, that is why I said I was not sure if I had correctly understood what you were saying about human though an existence.

1 hour ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

Things exist totally independently from human beings

We are agreed about this second point then.

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

Things are known to have existed before there were any humans. Further humans are still discovering the existence of things that now human has had in his mind before the discovery.

Getting away from the deeeep philosophical analysis of existence, in reality, it [existence]  seems to be a simple explanable result of the BB, or the evolution of space and time. 

None of us or the chair we sit on and the computer keyboard I type on, would exist without that moment, 13.83 billion years ago.

4 hours ago, Eise said:

 To give again another example: space and time. One could call them the 'stage' on which causal processes occur (Pity that Markus is away now, he surely had to say something about it from the viewpoint of general relativity...). But they themselves do not exist in the same way as physical objects or processes exist in space and time. Space does not punch a ball, neither does time. Asking for THE general, meaning of EXISTENCE, leads to nothing other than all kind of philosophical apories, getting people confused. And if you insist on one meaning, it will lead to some bad metaphysics.

Bingo!! Totally aligning with my thinking. The highlighted sentence, I would just say, that something does not need to  be physical or to exist to be real. 

Edited by beecee
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, studiot said:

What I am trying to describe is the notion that just as we might say "There exists a road from Ghent to Aix" , ie it has a spread in space, we should consider how something exists in time.

Sure, for many 'things' existence means 'existing in time'. But there are a few exceptions, which I think I mentioned already: mathematical truths, laws of nature to name just two. And as said, time itself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Eise said:

Sure, for many 'things' existence means 'existing in time'

As far as I am able to perceive anything is existing in Space at a moment of time.

Could you give an example what is able “existing in time” without space?

 

Edited by Conscious Energy
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

Secondly : Things exist totally independently from human beings. We humans have do not bestow Existence upon things that already exist. It was Senior Member Eise who thought so idealistically AND It was me who ventured to , most respectfully , refute his statements when I wrote above :  

15 hours ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

1__ Things do NOT exist for playing a role in human beings' lives. 

 

I fully agree, but you are not reacting on what I actually said. And you have not refuted anything, you have just contradicted some view without a single argument.

Just look at it this way: if something, principally, cannot play a role in our lives, can you then say it exists? And then I am not looking at historical accidents. E.g. a photon produced by a star in a galaxy billions light years away, arriving at one of its planets surely does not play a role in our lives. But photons definitely effect our lives very much (how else could you read this?). So photons exist, even if we happen not to observe them because they do not reach us.

Your view seems exactly what I warned about: to reduce the meaning of 'existence' to one category (physical existence in this case). But I mentioned many more. If we take your view, 'existence' meaning 'existing independently', then a whole lot of 'things' we normally see as existing, wouldn't: holes, shadows, juridical laws, laws of nature, institutions, thoughts, feelings. None of these exist independently.

1 minute ago, Conscious Energy said:

Could you give an example what is able “existing in time” but not in space?

If I were Descartes, I would say, yes, namely the mind. But I am not. ('Res extensa' i.e. everything that takes place in space vs 'res cogitans', the mind).

I just reacted to Studiot's question, which was about time. But surely you are right that much what applies to time, also applies to space.

A possible answer to your question could be 'mathematical truths'. But that, as said, is a complete new topic in itself. I do not want to go there now.

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

Sure, for many 'things' existence means 'existing in time'. But there are a few exceptions, which I think I mentioned already: mathematical truths, laws of nature to name just two. And as said, time itself.

Thank you but remember my initial response to the OP was to try to tighten it up by pointing out that we have the verb 'to exist' and the noun 'existence', each of which comes with its own implications given by the context.

Verbs come with the additional context of tenses, past present and future.
What may have existed in the past may not exist in the present or the future etc.

My room has a length of 5 metres.
It is necessary to provide at least that much space for my room 'to exist' in space.
You cannot choose (or limit your discussion to) a particular metre or section of space and use it to discuss the existence of the entire room.
Similarly my room has 'been in existence' for 82 years.
Again there are implications for choosing a section or shorter duration of time than this to discuss the entire existence of my room.
Further again if we are condidered to be travelling through time then there is the question of existence of anything at that section in a way that doesn't occur with space.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Eise said:

I fully agree, but you are not reacting on what I actually said. And you have not refuted anything, you have just contradicted some view without a single argument.

Just look at it this way: if something, principally, cannot play a role in our lives, can you then say it exists? And then I am not looking at historical accidents. E.g. a photon produced by a star in a galaxy billions light years away, arriving at one of its planets surely does not play a role in our lives. But photons definitely effect our lives very much (how else could you read this?). So photons exist, even if we happen not to observe them because they do not reach us.

Your view seems exactly what I warned about: to reduce the meaning of 'existence' to one category (physical existence in this case). But I mentioned many more. If we take your view, 'existence' meaning 'existing independently', then a whole lot of 'things' we normally see as existing, wouldn't: holes, shadows, juridical laws, laws of nature, institutions, thoughts, feelings. None of these exist independently.

If I were Descartes, I would say, yes, namely the mind. But I am not. ('Res extensa' i.e. everything that takes place in space vs 'res cogitans', the mind).

I just reacted to Studiot's question, which was about time. But surely you are right that much what applies to time, also applies to space.

A possible answer to your question could be 'mathematical truths'. But that, as said, is a complete new topic in itself. I do not want to go there now.

Shadows and musical notes and our relatives' dreams and the balancing policies of the Queen of Britain are also not depending on us for existence. From this specific  point of view there is no difference between them and stones and rocks and  Mt. Everest and the wildlife in Indian jungles. Problem is that the intersubjective remains of Existence thus  make them all more eidetic than classically objective.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

Shadows and musical notes and our relatives' dreams and the balancing policies of the Queen of Britain are also not depending on us for existence.

Sigh. Are you intentionally misunderstanding me? What when there is no Queen of Britain? Then there are no balancing policies of her either. They do not depend on me, or you, but definitely on HM Elizabeth.

Electrons on the other hand, would continue to exist even if no human would be there to detect them. 

So different kind of things exist in different ways. That is my whole point. There is no general EXISTENCE, except if you use such wavy definitions that I used as a reaction on Alex Mercer's post . Existence is not an attribute, as being white, or being rich, etc.

Edited by Eise
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Eise said:

Sigh. Are you intentionally misunderstanding me? What when there is no Queen of Britain? Then there are no balancing policies of her either. They do not depend on me, or you, but definitely on HM Elizabeth.

Electrons on the other hand, would continue to exist even if no human would be there to detect them. 

So different kind of things exist in different ways. That is my whole point. There is no general EXISTENCE, except if you use such wavy definitions that I used as a reaction on Alex Mercer's post . Existence is not an attribute, as being white, or being rich, etc.

I may ask for the permission to disagree . . .  .. 

I did not elicit the example of the Queen of USA 

I might have as well done that 

Then daydreaming and its interpretations would also remain  in the sphere of existence 

We have to be able to include them , too 

And somewhere , all these examples happen to stem from one source of ancestor......

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

Then daydreaming and its interpretations would also remain  in the sphere of existence 

Wow, 'sphere of existence'... Where can I find that sphere?

I did not say that daydreaming or its interpretations do not exist. I said that their existence is different from that of physical objects, because when there were no humans (or other similar conscious entities), there would not be daydreaming.

 

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

Wow, 'sphere of existence'... Where can I find that sphere?

I did not say that daydreaming or its interpretations do not exist. I said that their existence is different from that of physical objects, because when there were no humans (or other similar conscious entities), there would not be daydreaming.

 

because when there were no humans (or other similar conscious entities), there would not be daydreaming. 

One type of Existence does NOT depend upon another. There  ARE  zillions of conscious beings. They do have their own imagination. But even if they were not around , the Noetic pole of their Existence (what we are now talking about) would all and everywhere and under any circumstances be the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
Posted (edited)

. Existence is Life ... as such ...

 

. Existence is the ineffable ...

 

. Existence is the unkown ...

 

. Existence is God ...

 

. Existence is consciousness ... just a cosmic mirror ... reflecting all that is ...

Edited by Anand_Haqq
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.