Existence/Reality

Author: keithprosser

Posts

Total: 57
#31
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@TwoMan
"something must exist in order to be real" or "something must be real in order to exist".
Incorrect "real" has to with real estate ergo occupied space.

Metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts and macro-infinite non-occupied space both exist as what they are respectively and as complementary existent to occupied space if not specifical;y the reality we observe{ quantise }.

Metaphysical-1, 2, 3 and 4

Real as in observed reality of fermions, bosons and a new 3rd catagory all are occupied space.

Metaphysical-3{ gravity } and 4} dark energy also occupy space.

This is not semantic word games this about following rational,  logical common sense pathways of thought to their conclusion and  hopefully truth.



#32
TwoMan
TwoMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 379
1
2
3
TwoMan's avatar
TwoMan
1
2
3
-->
@mustardness
Metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts and macro-infinite non-occupied space both exist as what they are respectively and as complementary existent to occupied space if not specifical;y the reality we observe{ quantise }.

This is where we disagree. I contend that you can not logically say that non-occupied space exists outside of and embracing the universe (occupied space). This may seem like semantic word games but I don't look at it that way. If the universe is "all that exists" then logically nothing or "no thing" can exist apart from that. That would include an embracing macro "non-occupied space" which, by your use of words, is a "thing". I understand what you mean conceptually, I just disagree that you can logically say that a thing exists apart from all that exists.
#33
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@TwoMan
This is where we disagree. I contend that you can not logically say that non-occupied space exists outside of and embracing the universe (occupied space).
Huh?  I hope you not going to pull an Outplazy on me.

If ' Universe ' is finite, occupied SPACE { somethingness } aka Universe, then all other existence can only be;

1} metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts ex concept of Universe/God, triangle, Toyoata, unicorn God concepts of SPACE not an actual SPACE

2} macro-infinite non-occupied  SPACE.

If there is 3rd option you certainly do not offer any.

If the universe is "all that exists" then logically nothing or "no thing" can exist apart from that.

1a} verse = metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/conceptual thought, that, has no mass, weight, spin, orbit, torque, expansion-contraction etc

1b} verse = occupied SPACE expression of all that exists as occupied SPACE and within that set we can only or do, only observed{ quantised } fermions, bosons and a new 3rd hybrid catagory.


That would include an embracing macro "non-occupied space" which, by your use of words, is a "thing".
I dont recall saying macro-infinite non-occupied SPACE is a "thing". And of course use of that word can get into semantics. I do recall saying it{ macro-infinite non-occupied } exists in complementation to our finite, occupied SPACE Universe.

I understand what you mean conceptually, I just disagree that you can logically say that a thing exists apart from all that exists.

That is why I use these two following identies specifically as stated/expressed/presented;

0} " U "niverse" G "od is all inclusive i.e. the most Wholistic Cosmic Trinity outline/list as presented below

1}spirit-1{ spirit-of-intent }metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts ---italics see " U " and " G " previously,

------------line of demarcation----------------------------------

2} eternally existent, metaphysical-2, macro-infinite, non-occupied SPACE,

3} eternal existent, finite, occupied SPACE Universe/God  aka Uni-V-erse.

So " U " niverse/" G "od is inclusive God/Universe and metaphysical-1 whereas God/Universe is not inclusive of " G "od/" U "niverse.

Do you understand? In order for humans --who orbit the absolute truth-- we have to refine our definitions and identifying words in order to get closer to absolute truth without losing site of the greastest wholistic truths.

#0 contains 1, 2, 3 not the other way around. And yes and to make a more refine outline/list, ---which ive been doing for years--, then we should begin with #4 at top since numerically #4 contains, 3, 2 and 1. Do you understand?

Coming around to most refined succinct expanatory outline/list has taken many revisions over the years, with the latter numerical concept is just the next step, that I only realized today or previoulsy and never stuck with me. Do you understand?

Sure people can just say 'all', but by using minimal amout of lines of text Ive actually given more definition to what specifically 'all' is.

All is not just occupied SPACE it is also non-occupied SPACE and mind/intellect/concepts.

Most people do not have the patience to actually follow the depths of rational, logical common sense to their conclusion. We have been in an age of instant gratification ever since the digital calculator arrived with the answer/resultant and we know longer have to figure how we go to the correct solution.

With GPS we no longer have to use a map to navigate were we want go to.


Read my lips/text:

Finite = integrity, systemic and structural stability { integrity } even if for a microsecond ---see mesons { mesonic particles }---

Infinite = lack of systemic and structural stability { integrity }

Only two kinds of infinite exist, 2} metaphysical-2, macro-infinite non-occupied SPACE, and,
1}  concepts of infinite this or that concept of infinite set of numbers exist only as a concept and concept does not occupy SPACE.  A concept has no mass, weight, spin etc.

Hope that helps to clarify what I mean specifically, with my comments as stated. 



#34
TwoMan
TwoMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 379
1
2
3
TwoMan's avatar
TwoMan
1
2
3
Can a concept be considered to exist?
Or can only the thought of a concept be considered to exist?

Topic's author
#35
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@TwoMan
Can a concept be considered to exist?
Or can only the thought of a concept be considered to exist?
generally I perfer narrow definition which avoid figurative usage.

Consider 'Unicorns'.   We can all agree that unicorns do not exist simpliciter, but they 'kinda exist' as fictional/imaginary things, or as concepts. 

But if we allow 'unicorns exist' to be a valid thing to say or write then it's going to be hard to distiguish between the way unicorns 'kinda exist' and horses 'really exist'.  It would be easy to make mistakes because the language would be blurring an inportant distinction between the 'existential state' of unicorns and horses in the world.

So I try to avoid saying/writing 'X exists' when its really 'the concept of X exists'.   That isn't changing or imposing a definition on 'exists' but using its natural meaning carefully.

You actually go further and ask if concepts even exist.  I would say they do, but care is needed to avoid slipping from 'the concept of X exists' to 'X exists'. 

#36
TwoMan
TwoMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 379
1
2
3
TwoMan's avatar
TwoMan
1
2
3
-->
@keithprosser
You actually go further and ask if concepts even exist.  I would say they do, but care is needed to avoid slipping from 'the concept of X exists' to 'X exists'. 
If concepts exist, do they still exist if nobody is thinking about them? I know, it's similar to the tree falling in the forest. If a unicorn only existed as a verbal description, meaning nobody ever wrote about or drew pictures of it, would the concept of it continue to exist if nobody ever thought about it again?

#37
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
-->
@keithprosser
2 + 2 = 4 is truth. 

If you add 2 piles of sand to 2 piles of sand what do you get?
#38
TwoMan
TwoMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 379
1
2
3
TwoMan's avatar
TwoMan
1
2
3
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
If you add 2 piles of sand to 2 piles of sand what do you get?
You get the amount of sand equal to 4 piles of sand.

#39
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
-->
@TwoMan
You don't say that But Ok So. 
2 piles of sand plus 2 piles of sand equals 8 half piles of sand
2+2 =4

16 quarter piles of sand. 

#40
TwoMan
TwoMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 379
1
2
3
TwoMan's avatar
TwoMan
1
2
3
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
You don't say that But Ok So. 
2 piles of sand plus 2 piles of sand equals 8 half piles of sand
2+2 =4

16 quarter piles of sand. 
And your point being?

Topic's author
#41
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@TwoMan
I'm trying to work accrding to my understanding of Wittgenstein here - the ideas is to identify therules that govern how people use the word 'exist' rather than what it ight say in a dictionary.

So what are you asking when you say 'If concepts exist, do they still exist if nobody is thinking about them?'.  What image lies behind it?

The image I get is of an entity 'outside the universe'.  If that entity could see X in the universe then X exists, if it can't see X (because threre is no x to see) then X does not exist. 

if there cae to be no writing about unicorns in the world and no-one had any thoughts with the content 'unicorn' then the entity could scan the universe thoroughly and not find even one ecample of the concept of a unicorn - ie it (ie 'the concept of unicorns') would not exist.   At least it would not exist at that point in time.  There is no reason I can see why at a later time someone cannot re-imagine a horned horse and the concept (or a very similar concept) would then exist.

Would it be the same concept resurrected or an entirely new concept merely similar to the previous one?   That isn't a matter of fact but of how the words 'same concept' are interpreted.  I would say that people who use words carefully would say it was similar not 'the same' because 'the same' has a connotation of continuity.   Loosely we might say two things are the same when what we really should have said is they are simillar.

Note I have not referred to a dictionary but to how words are actually used in ordinary language.  It's a proper philosophical thing!

I like the idea - it's not a silver bullet but its a useful tool to avoid getting bogged down in semantic quibbling and definition wars.




Topic's author
#42
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
I didn't write
2+2=4 is truth
I wrote
2+2=4 is true

My point was that I don't say any more by asserting '2+2=4 is true' than if I had simply asserted '2+2=4'.   Most times people use the short form, but you often see the 'is true' form in posts and elsewhere.  Further, because 'is true' is redundant I could say
'2+2=4 is true' is true, and even 'it is true that 2+2=4 is true is true' and so on.
 
It seems that saying something is true adds nothing - is truth therefore nothing? 

#43
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Having Unlimited time to prove something exists sure is handy.




#44
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
We might say a virtual reality world, seen while wearing goggles or a helmet or whatever, "exists" but isn't real. If it both doesn't exist and isn't real, then how would we be seeing it?
Virtual reality produces an illusion.

The product of virtual reality "exists" as an illusion.

Does an illusion "exist"?

Well, we can say the underlying mechanisms of the illusion exist (as Quanta) but the perception of the illusion itself does not exist (it is Qualia).

#45
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@TwoMan
Can a concept be considered to exist?
You apparrently did not read what I wrote.  If you think concepts do not exist as metaphyiscal-1m mind/intellect, then I recommend a dictionary, for starters.

Or can only the thought of a concept be considered to exist?
Again read what I wrote:

Consciousness ---many animals---  does not neccessitate access to metphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts but when they do it is varying degrees, with humans having the most access.

Read  my lips/text there exist three primary kinds of existence and two of them are SPACE.

I will repeat this again until you get it, metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts have NO mass, NO weight, No spin, NO charge { + and - }, NO expansion-contraction, NO torque, NO color, No frequency.

Human pass on their knowledge{ metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts } to the next generation.

Metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts are concepts of SPACE, Space (><)(><),  space { ex between two houses } and not actual SPACE.

That is why there is -------line-of-demarcation--------- between metaphysical-1, and metaphysical-2 and eternally existent, finite, occupied Space Universe.

Read my lips/text and  leave all of you misperceptions and preconditioning elsewhere.




#46
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@TwoMan
If concepts exist, do they still exist if nobody is thinking about them?
Yes, so far as they eternally exist in complement to eternally existet non-occupied SPACE and occupied Space.

If the latter two did not exist then the former could does not exist.  Something { occupied space } exists only because non-occupied space exists.

Ex we know what any local special-case 'space' is because we experience somethingness. Ex here is the local space between two houses

1} observer ex consciousness,

2} observed --two houses---,

3} line-of-relationship ---EMRadiation reflecting off houses into our eyes--

4} background ---environement-Universe--- against which we observe the above three.

I know, it's similar to the tree falling in the forest.
Yes the frequency of 'sound' occurs even if no human or animal exists to hear-receive that frequency/vibration.

If a unicorn only existed as a verbal description, meaning nobody ever wrote about or drew pictures of it, would the concept of it continue to exist if nobody ever thought about it again?
The potential for it to be expressed in words, drawing etc exists.  There is potential for infinite to exist in only two ways;

1} macro-infinite non-occupied space,

2} concepts of infinite this or that, ex infinite set of numbers is a concept. They are not ever expressed as an occupied space somethingness.

People seem to have no trouble believing in an infinite occupied space Universe, even tho most humans really do not grasp the size of our known finite Universe.

So, instead of attempting to grasp ultra-large or ultra-micro this or that, it is so much easier conclusion on their brains to just say  'oh its all infinite', and then they feel their off the hook from actually having to actually know any kind of rational, logical common sense based on human observations.
#47
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@keithprosser
It seems that saying something is true adds nothing - is truth therefore nothing?
False.  It adds metaphyscial-1 information about Universe or its parts and that includes all lines-of-relationship

Relative Truths;

2 + 2 = 4

1 + 1 = 4

1 triangle plus 1 triangle can equal traingles of same size as 1 and 1.

1 man plus 1 woman may result{ resultant } 15 progeny.

Absolute Truth:

the minimal possible 2D enclosure of Universe is a triangle

The minimal possible 3D enclosure of Universe is a tetra{4}hedron.

Finite = systemic and structural integrity

Infinite = lack of systemic and structural integrity
Topic's author
#48
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
My project this week is to outlaw phrases like "exists" as an allusion'.   Someting either does or does not exist - no quotation marks or qualifiers allowed!

The situation is an image of a cow displayed and viewed on a vr head set.

A pattern of coloured LCDs exists - the cow it represent does not exist.
A pattern of neural activity in the viewers brain exists induced by light fro the LCDs.

The cow perceived by the viewer does not exist.  What we can say the cow is perceived, but not that it exists.

If you perceive a cow it is guaranteed that a pattern of neural activity encoding 'cow' exists in your brain.  Perceving a cow not a gurantee that cow exists but obviously it will usually be case that it does.



#49
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@keithprosser
We could construct an entirely virtual world from this one and have it look exactly the same.

#50
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
A pattern of coloured LCDs exists - the cow it represent does not exist.
A pattern of neural activity in the viewers brain exists induced by light fro the LCDs.
The cow perceived by the viewer does not exist.  What we can say the cow is perceived, but not that it exists.
If you perceive a cow it is guaranteed that a pattern of neural activity encoding 'cow' exists in your brain.  Perceving a cow not a gurantee that cow exists but obviously it will usually be case that it does. 
I agree.
#51
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
When you consider that colors aren't real it makes you question how anything is.
Topic's author
#52
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
We could construct an entirely virtual world from this one and have it look exactly the same.
not today we can't.    What you mean precisely?

#53
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@keithprosser
If the images we see in a VR helmet, on TV, and in the real world are all made of the same light, it's just a matter of arranging that light to match what we see in the real world.
Topic's author
#54
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
Its not hard to fool the eyes alone, especially for static cases.  Artists have been doing 'Trompe-l'œil' for hundreds of years.

It's much, much harder to make dynamic/interactive simulations 100% convincing

#55
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@keithprosser
Eventually we'll probably have technology that simulates sensations of real stuff in the brain. 
#56
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
Eventually we'll probably have technology that simulates sensations of real stuff in the brain. 
The 1993 TV miniseries (which aired on the ABC network) "Wild Palms" did a pretty realistic job of portraying what this future might look like.



#57
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
Especially if all sensations are just well-placed electrical signals in the brain. When you feel something the nerves in your fingers send electrical signals to the brain and those electrical signals determine the sensations.