Existence - What it is

[ReluctantProphet]

I am amazed how often people argue about the question of what existence is. But as often as it gets brought up concerning God issues, it seems to be something to settle. Often the dictionary offers only an ambiguous definition or merely a substitution for the word. Word substitution might help if you’re not looking for detailed understanding, but does not constitute an actual definition.

I propose the following as the defining quality of existence.

Existence is that which has the property of affect. If something has affect, then it exists. If something has no affect, it does not exist.

Corollary; Dreams, fantasies, and lies are each a sample of things which exist as their names imply, although the characters or objects within these existences exist only as structural components of the whole. They have no other existence.

Does this work?

 

[meebs]

all this existance stuff gives me a headache!

 

[nadroj1985]

What does "affect" mean here?

 

[ReluctantProphet]

What does "affect" mean here?

Heh. I was wondering who was going to be the first to ask that.

Actually I think the standard dictionary definition works well enough from that point. But just in case....

Affect – (Adjective; affective); having the property of or ability to cause change or alteration in something else. (Verb; to affect); to cause change in the state or behavior of something else.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

all this existance stuff gives me a headache!

sometimes things just have that affect...


arr arr

 

[elman]

I am amazed how often people argue about the question of what existence is. But as often as it gets brought up concerning God issues, it seems to be something to settle. Often the dictionary offers only an ambiguous definition or merely a substitution for the word. Word substitution might help if you’re not looking for detailed understanding, but does not constitute an actual definition.

I propose the following as the defining quality of existence.

Existence is that which has the property of affect. If something has affect, then it exists. If something has no affect, it does not exist.

Corollary; Dreams, fantasies, and lies are each a sample of things which exist as their names imply, although the characters or objects within these existences exist only as structural components of the whole. They have no other existence.

Does this work?

I think things can exist and have no effect on us or not be perceived by us to exist or to have an effect. I don't think we are able to perceive all reality and what we do perceive, we do so in an incomplete and flawed way. Since reality is so difficult for us to tie down with certainty, then it should be no surprise that existence which is connected to reality would also be elusive.

 

[Im_A]

I am amazed how often people argue about the question of what existence is. But as often as it gets brought up concerning God issues, it seems to be something to settle. Often the dictionary offers only an ambiguous definition or merely a substitution for the word. Word substitution might help if you’re not looking for detailed understanding, but does not constitute an actual definition.

I propose the following as the defining quality of existence.

Existence is that which has the property of affect. If something has affect, then it exists. If something has no affect, it does not exist.

Corollary; Dreams, fantasies, and lies are each a sample of things which exist as their names imply, although the characters or objects within these existences exist only as structural components of the whole. They have no other existence.

Does this work?

so basically your saying that the only way we can know existence is by things we can see, touch, feel, understand?

 

[ReluctantProphet]

I think things can exist and have no effect on us or not be perceived by us to exist or to have an effect. I don't think we are able to perceive all reality and what we do perceive, we do so in an incomplete and flawed way. Since reality is so difficult for us to tie down with certainty, then it should be no surprise that existence which is connected to reality would also be elusive.

Having affect and being perceived are very different. You can easily be affected by something that you never perceived except in speculation after the consequence.

Science has accepted for a very long time that nothing can exist anywhere throughout the universe without technically having affect on all other things.

Total, 100% separation of one thing from having any affect at all on something else cannot be accomplished. We perceive separation because distance reduces affects to a point of no concern.


In the long run, even if something could exist without any affect at all, why would you care?

But more to the point, if something can exist without affect, then what properties CAN it have? Any examples – even speculative?

 

[ReluctantProphet]

so basically your saying that the only way we can know existence is by things we can see, touch, feel, understand?

Well, "feel and touch" are obviously limited. But you said "know" and "understand"

You can only know of something if given, by whatever means, an indication that it exists. To understand means that you also know how that thing relates (is affected by and has affects on) to other associated things.

None of this implies that it is only by your senses that you can know of something unless you redefine "senses" as being "any means of becoming aware".

The definition is proposing simply that if something truly has absolutely NO affect on anything, then it does not exist. This does not exclude the possibility of the thought of it, but its existence in reality.

 

[Im_A]

Well, "feel and touch" are obviously limited. But you said "know" and "understand"

You can only know of something if given, by whatever means, an indication that it exists. To understand means that you also know how that thing relates (is affected by and has affects on) to other associated things.

None of this implies that it is only by your senses that you can know of something unless you redefine "senses" as being "any means of becoming aware".

The definition is proposing simply that if something truly has absolutely NO affect on anything, then it does not exist. This does not exclude the possibility of the thought of it, but its existence in reality.

but we have to able to tell what the affect is. and how do we know/define what the affect is? something we can see/feel/touch/understand/know. so is this what your saying?

 

[ReluctantProphet]

but we have to able to tell what the affect is. and how do we know/define what the affect is? something we can see/feel/touch/understand/know. so is this what your saying?

Affect – (Adjective; affective); having the property of or ability to cause change or alteration in something else. (Verb; to affect); to cause change in the state or behavior of something else.

We DO have a need to quantify and measure affect so as to have an idea of how and to what degree something affects us. But first, it needs to be clear that something can ONLY exist if it actually has SOME affect on us directly or indirectly by some means.


The ability to sense something tells us that there is something there having affect. To "know" what that thing is, is another matter. We give things groupings, concepts, and names based on the properties that we perceive or speculate that they have.

But how much we can know of something is an entirely separate issue from whether something has affect or exists simply because the lack of our ability to perceive or speculate can easily be limited such as to never "see" what is actually there and perhaps been there all along.

I agree that we have a "need to know" and thus Science, philosophers, logicians, and priests all attempt to resolve what actually exists and how it behaves.

 

[Sojourner<><]

We DO have a need to quantify and measure affect so as to have an idea of how and to what degree something affects us. But first, it needs to be clear that something can ONLY exist if it actually has SOME affect on us directly or indirectly by some means.


The ability to sense something tells us that there is something there having affect. To "know" what that thing is, is another matter. We give things groupings, concepts, and names based on the properties that we perceive or speculate that they have.

But how much we can know of something is an entirely separate issue from whether something has affect or exists simply because the lack of our ability to perceive or speculate can easily be limited such as to never "see" what is actually there and perhaps been there all along.

I agree that we have a "need to know" and thus Science, philosophers, logicians, and priests all attempt to resolve what actually exists and how it behaves.

I would suggest that existence is possibility fulfilled, but I have no way of verifying the existence of that truth

 

[Sojourner<><]

I would suggest that existence is possibility fulfilled, but I have no way of verifying the existence of that truth

Or is possibility simply an idea, like chance, and that which is simply is?

 

[ReluctantProphet]

It sounds like you're trying to get at the definition of the knowledge of something's existence which has to be verified through the effect it has on our various senses.

Well, as is so very common, you're over speculating as to where I am "trying" to lead. I am really only trying to lead to a degree of sanity. If this thought that existence must have the property of affect leads to something else, then I say lets deal with that something else when it shows up (and it indeed will). My only intent now is to see if there is any sensible objection to this one starting point simply for the sake of maintaining sanity toward any other conclusion.

I don't accept that by merely accepting this one thought, you can jump straight to any conclusion about the various other concerns about what exists, if God exists, or even if something can be perceived.

But before that can happen we must first conceptualize the possibility of something's existence and then verify the fulfillment of that possibility. The trustworthiness of that concept can then be determined. However, at this point we're dealing with a concept in the mind, not the thing itself.

With this I totally agree.

At this point, we are only talking about a mental axiom to begin a reasoning process. It has nothing to do with the finer and more concerning details of reality. In effect, it is suggesting that we keep our minds only on things that actually have affect and clear the clouds of all of the possibilities concerning what might exist without having affect.

If something truly has absolutely no affect, then we hardly have need to waste time talking about it other than to verify that it could not have affect.

Simply looking with care at all of the things that man has speculated, whether accurate or not, it is the potential affect of those things that is the obvious concern.

We say that this or that isn't there simply because we detect no affect coming from that area. We know that our ability to perceive can be distorted and limited, thus we attempt to use tools and equipment to help. We also use reverse deductions and speculative hypothesis to explore the possibilities of something being there but merely not perceived.

The objective in any such endeavor is still that same concern of whether something is there which might have affect on us.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

I would suggest that existence is possibility fulfilled, but I have no way of verifying the existence of that truth

What do you mean by "fulfilled"?

To me that word indicates a destination and thus a course and a travel. I can accept that there is a destination for many things and even all things, but how does that relate to existence having affect or not?

If anything, I would think that it implies that because there is a destination, then there must have been something affecting the travel to it.

But I actually don't see much relation between "fulfilled" and "existence".

 

[ReluctantProphet]

Or is possibility simply an idea, like chance, and that which is simply is?

Ahhh.. you have stated 2 concerns here.

When you say that existence is "that which simply is", I would not disagree. But all you have really done is substitute one word for another and not really yielded any useful properties so as to proceed with any more than you had before.

Yes, existence is that which is, but the point that I was making is that "that which is" can only be an "is" IF it has affect on something.

is = exists = has affect on SOMEthing somewhere.


-------

But now, you also brought up that existence might be merely an idea. This implies that it does not actually exist except in the mind. But then how can you proclaim anything about it existing as anything if you don’t first clarify what it means to exist?

This is a particularly interesting concept because it gets to the root of why anybody actually thinks at all.

If you accept that "what is" or existence is simply an idea and nothing else, then you can no longer make decisions based on any rationale of any kind except temporary imaginings that could change at any moment. This is where insanity begins.

If you do not accept that you exist such as to even have such a thought, then where can you go from there? You could draw no next logical step or lead to any conclusion about anything at all. If accepted fully, your mind simply must shut down for it has no function that would lead to any useful result other than to help keep other people occupied with your random actions and arguments that could never be resolved. You become no more than a flame in society leading to its destruction rather than providing any help in keeping it healthy.

Everything has both a thought, concept, or idea as well as an existence assuming that it is real. Saying that something is "just an idea" implies that it is only a thought, but leads to no other conclusion or property description.

The point to the definition is to point out properties that provide a useful mental construct to begin sane reasoning.

 

[michabo]

I wonder, since we're on CF, would "the non-existence of God" exist, since it affects people worldwide?

 

[bob135]

So then anything that we see exists, since it has the effect of us seeing it? This gives us no way to differentiate things that exist as concepts and things that exist in the material world. Also, for things to have effects, they have to alter things that exist. For those things to exist, they have to affect other things that exist, and so on. It seems you run into a circular definition.

Something that does nothing, like an invisible, massless, etc object could exist, although existence would be its only property, so you might run into problems there.

I guess I would say existence is something that has properties independent of those we give it. This doesn't really help in proving what exists and what doesn't, only a framework for thinking about it. An apple, for example, exists in part because it remains red and shiny and made up of atoms even when we aren't looking at it. The number four, or any idea, ceases to exist when we stop thinking about it (except for some remaining physical traces of it in our brain).

 

[quatona]

I am amazed how often people argue about the question of what existence is. But as often as it gets brought up concerning God issues, it seems to be something to settle. Often the dictionary offers only an ambiguous definition or merely a substitution for the word. Word substitution might help if you’re not looking for detailed understanding, but does not constitute an actual definition.

I propose the following as the defining quality of existence.

Existence is that which has the property of affect. If something has affect, then it exists. If something has no affect, it does not exist.

Corollary; Dreams, fantasies, and lies are each a sample of things which exist as their names imply, although the characters or objects within these existences exist only as structural components of the whole. They have no other existence.

Does this work?

For which purpose?

 

[quatona]

I am amazed how often people argue about the question of what existence is. But as often as it gets brought up concerning God issues, it seems to be something to settle. Often the dictionary offers only an ambiguous definition or merely a substitution for the word. Word substitution might help if you’re not looking for detailed understanding, but does not constitute an actual definition.

I propose the following as the defining quality of existence.

Existence is that which has the property of affect. If something has affect, then it exists. If something has no affect, it does not exist.

Corollary; Dreams, fantasies, and lies are each a sample of things which exist as their names imply, although the characters or objects within these existences exist only as structural components of the whole. They have no other existence.

Does this work?

I see a certain problem with concluding from an effect (change etc.) on a particular thing to be that which affected it, i.e. I do not really see a good reason to assume that this thing exists without further information.
Thus, if I feel the FSM has affected me and cured me from a disease, the effect is not in doubt, we may not even doubt that there is a cause, but the identification of the cause is at least discussable.