Existence - What it is

[Danhalen]

What properties non-existing things have is not relevant as long as they cannot have the property of affect.

I would say that what properties a non-existing thing might have would be totally unknow-able to us. We measure properties by the type and degree of affect they have, so in a sense, for a non-existing thing to have any property is not really possible (as far as anyone in this universe is concerned anyway).

Is it your contention the objects of dreams, fantasies and lies have no affect, and therefore have no existence?

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.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Existence is that which has the property of affect. Does this work?

I personally wouldn't require that an entity be able to affect another entity in some way. It seems enough for an entity to have identity, which means having a behavior of some sort, i.e. characteristics.

Restated: To be is to be something, as Aristotle pointed out. I think he was on the money there.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[ReluctantProphet]

Is it your contention the objects of dreams, fantasies and lies have no affect, and therefore have no existence?

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.

My contention is that the objects within dreams, for example, only have the affect of being a component or partial construct of the dream and have no other affect or existence.

Without the dream, the component objects within do not exist unless within another dream.

If the object is referring to an existence that is independent of the dream, then the object exists, but the component of the dream is only a conceptual thought or representation of the object and not the object itself. Thus again, the object within the dream, even though it refers to an existent object, is still only a dream component or thought and has no existence outside of that.

If a person dreams of an apple, the particular apple being referred to might well exist, but the dream itself is only a thought process and thus all objects within are thoughts and not the actual objects.

The fact that an apple exists that is being referred to by the dream, does not give the dream any more existence than if that apple had not existed. The dream and all components within are still just a dream.

Dreams exist in that dreams have affect. But they have only the limited affect of dreams and thus are confined to only having affect on the dreamer. That dreamer must also have affect on other things but the point is that the dreamt object must follow only the affects allowed by the chain of affects beginning with the dreamer outward to other things. Whereas, a non-dreamt object had affect even without any dreamer involved.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

I personally wouldn't require that an entity be able to affect another entity in some way. It seems enough for an entity to have identity, which means having a behavior of some sort, i.e. characteristics.

Restated: To be is to be something, as Aristotle pointed out. I think he was on the money there.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I agree with Aristotle. But I contend that in his definition, he has not really said what properties existence has. He was actually trying to discuss the limits of identity.

He was explaining that for something to be one thing and not something else, it must have unique properties. Included in that thought, he stated that for a thing to be a thing, then it must be SOMEthing. But what does that really tell you?

What properties make a thing a something?

I offer that the property being unconsciously accepted is that for something to be anything, it must have the property of affecting something else (and eventually you). Properties are merely the measure of type and degree of affect and thus nothing can have properties unless it has affect.

 

[exploring]

Unfortunately you can't satisfactorily answer the question "what is existence". What you can do is show that you definitely can't.

First, accept that the question "what is existence?" is equivalent to the command "draw a picture of existence" (expecting a word-picture, or sentence as a reply). It sounds like a sort of verbal sleight of hand but if you think about it it isn't really, it just makes thinking about the concept easier.

Now imagine drawing a picture of a mug. Obviously you wouldn't be able to if you had nothing but the mug itself. A picture needs to be different to the thing it picures, otherwise it would be the same thing, not a picture.

So to draw a picture of existence you would need to use something that doesn't exist, which clearly isn't possible.

What this impasse does tell us about existence is precisely that: there is nothing we can use as a picture that does not exist. So the set of things that exist is the set of things of which it is possible to think.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

Unfortunately you can't satisfactorily answer the question "what is existence". What you can do is show that you definitely can't.

Satisfaction is relative, I guess.

First, accept that the question "what is existence?" is equivalent to the command "draw a picture of existence" (expecting a word-picture, or sentence as a reply).

Naahhh.. I can't accept that.

Now imagine drawing a picture of a mug. Obviously you wouldn't be able to if you had nothing but the mug itself. A picture needs to be different to the thing it picures, otherwise it would be the same thing, not a picture.

Wow.

So to draw a picture of existence you would need to use something that doesn't exist, which clearly isn't possible.

I would be interested in how you define concepts like infinity, love, nothingness, randomness, a thought, plasma clouds, and 100 others that don't typically have pictures associated with them.

What this impasse does tell us about existence is precisely that: there is nothing we can use as a picture that does not exist. So the set of things that exist is the set of things of which it is possible to think.

Soooo... You can't think of a thought because if you thought of a thought then your thought would be a thought and not a non-thought and any thought, being a thought would just be that and not different than a real thought so you can't think it.


Yeeeeaaahhh... Oewkeeeyy...

 

[Eudaimonist]

I agree with Aristotle. But I contend that in his definition, he has not really said what properties existence has.

Any properties. There is no "existence" as such. There are only cars, trees, rocks, people, etc. The properties of "existence" are the properties of cars, trees, rocks, people, etc.

He was explaining that for something to be one thing and not something else, it must have unique properties.

Yes, and having properties is what it is for something to exist. Being something is what it is to exist. That's the point.

What properties make a thing a something?

Again, any properties.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[ReluctantProphet]

.. Yes, and having properties is what it is for something to exist. Being something is what it is to exist. That's the point.

I completely agree.

Now, since you want to go that route, explain to us what a "property" is, not by example, but a definition.

 

[Danhalen]

My contention is that the objects within dreams, for example, only have the affect of being a component or partial construct of the dream and have no other affect or existence.

My reasoning behind the question is this: dreams, lies and concepts do affect us. These things are sometimes what motivate us to action. You concede dreams, lies and concepts do exist as what they are, and nothing more. The objects within them cannot exist beyond the concept, yet the objects within them do affect us with the will to be driven. This seems to imbue conceptual objects with the property of affect.

Let me know if I am off base.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

My reasoning behind the question is this: dreams, lies and concepts do affect us. These things are sometimes what motivate us to action. You concede dreams, lies and concepts do exist as what they are, and nothing more. The objects within them cannot exist beyond the concept, yet the objects within them do affect us with the will to be driven. This seems to imbue conceptual objects with the property of affect.

Let me know if I am off base.

As I said, the objects within the dream are a component of the dream. The dream affects. The components act as a part of the dream, thus the objects affect the dream and the dream affects the person who then affects his surroundings.

The point was only that the dream objects have no affect independent of the dreamer such as to affect the world in any way directly.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I completely agree.

Now, since you want to go that route, explain to us what a "property" is, not by example, but a definition.

What makes you think that a property can be defined, which is to say, without leading to an infinite regress of definitions?

I will loosely describe a property as anything that is true of an entity. To speak of a property is to have a concept about an entity that we form by isolating some feature of the entity for consideration. The referent of the concept is some limited, identifiable aspect of the entity. This may not really be a definition, but I think it's as close as we can get to one.

(Edited for clarity.)

eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[exploring]

I would be interested in how you define concepts like infinity, love, nothingness, randomness, a thought, plasma clouds, and 100 others that don't typically have pictures associated with them.

If you accept the thing about the mug (was that an accepting wow?), I don't see how you can not accept that a picutre needs to be different to the pictured thing

Soooo... You can't think of a thought because if you thought of a thought then your thought would be a thought and not a non-thought and any thought, being a thought would just be that and not different than a real thought so you can't think it.

Clearly not all thoughts are the same thing: just as you can draw a picture of a pencil with another pencil, so you can imagine a thought with another thought.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

If you can not define what a word means, then the word ends up meaning different things to different people and thus not only creates conflict and confusion, but also relays error to the young and leads to the aging and decay of a society.

Using words without definition is subtle deception in action. There is no word in any language that truly has no definition. The concept that a word represents might be difficult to explain, but if the word had no concept associated with it, then it wouldn't really be a word.

What makes you think that a property can be defined, which is to say, without leading to an infinite regress of definitions?

Definitions only need to be stated when there is potential question involved. If you examine a more precise definition for the word "property", then you should see why I asked the question. It should be a short discussion.

I will loosely describe a property as anything that is true of an entity. To speak of a property is to have a concept about an entity that we form by isolating some feature of the entity for consideration. The referent of the concept is some limited, identifiable aspect of the entity. This may not really be a definition, but I think it's as close as we can get to one.

In this part, you basically have said that the word "property" means "a true feature or aspect of an entity".

The substitution of one word for another is not really a definition, as you pointed out. In this the word property is substituted by the words "aspect" and "feature".

A definition requires that a concept be related to something outside that concept so as to be able to identify it from other concept relations. If you were to define an apple, then you would need to relate it to concepts that narrow down all possibilities of it being anything other than the concept you had in mind.

You could not say that an "apple is a fruit" as a complete definition because there are other fruits.

You could not say that an "apple is red" because other things are red and every apple isn't actually red.

You could not say that an "apple has seeds" because many things have seeds.

Think of all of the debates and discussion you have been involved in that use the word "God" yet the only definitions for the word are merely limited features and not a real definition, i.e. "God is the creator", "God is omniscient", "God is all mighty"....

None of these types of descriptors actually define God but merely tell of a few aspects.

The real question would be, "What makes something a God as opposed to being anything else?"

What makes an apple what it is as opposed to being anything else? Words such as "apple" can be difficult to define in a meaningful way simply because the most meaningful aspect of the apple involves direct experience of taste. We don't define our taste senses very well and thus when those sense are involved, we can't relate in words exactly what we intend. It is the lack of good definitions of taste that prevent us from being able to use words to communicate tastes.

What makes a property what it is as opposed to being anything else? Most people have not looked at the word's definition simply because it tends to be sufficiently gathered from a young age without anyone ever really explaining it.

I beleive that you will find that if you try to actually define what a property really is, then you will see that it is something that must indeed have affect on something so as to gain that property and how it affects other things is what categorizes which kind of property is involved. The degree of affect also comes into something's properties.

You can not have a property without relative measurement of affect. Something has the property of solidity only if it is substantially more solid than a standard. Something has the property of large size only if it is larger than a standard. You can not have a property without something else to compare it to. When comparing it, you are examining the differences in potential affect.

If you look at the OP and replace the word "affect" with the word "properties", it will end up saying exactly the same thing. I used the word "affect" simply because it helps point out that there must be something else involved.

When Aristotle spoke of existence, he never mentioned the fact that all properties are relative. The word "affect" used in the OP helps to relate the aspect of relativity in existence. In fact, without that aspect of relativeness, the universe itself could never happen and would not exist at all.

Make no mistake, I have extreme respect for Aristotle. He was WAY above those around him at the time. But we have a 2300 year advantage. We don't have to be as great as he just to add a little on to what he could so clearly see and document so very long ago.

Aristotle could see in his mind very many relationships in reality that far exceeded the typical for his day. But today, we can go far beyond that. We can see in our minds how the universe ever began from the start and where everything he was seeing came from and how it all relates.

There is nothing that Aristotle saw that we cannot see even better now and with far more detail. But notice how often he was trying to define words and concepts merely so he could discuss anything else. Just like anything else, if you want to know how the universe came about, you must first get some concepts and definitions straight. The presumption that everyone has the same understanding of words and their relation to other words is what is keeping people from avoiding irrationality.

 

[exploring]

If you can not define what a word means, then the word ends up meaning different things to different people and thus not only creates conflict and confusion, but also relays error to the young and leads to the aging and decay of a society.

Using words without definition is subtle deception in action. There is no word in any language that truly has no definition.

Unfortunately everyone understands words differently, its quite unavoidable. Take names for example. The name sarah probably means a completely different thing to you than to me. similarly, different people have different responses to language: some people respect the old, so maybe they interpreted "the aging and decay of society" as a good thing. There aren't any word police so communication is always going to be a bit imprecise.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

Unfortunately everyone understands words differently, its quite unavoidable. Take names for example. The name sarah probably means a completely different thing to you than to me. similarly, different people have different responses to language: some people respect the old, so maybe they interpreted "the aging and decay of society" as a good thing. There aren't any word police so communication is always going to be a bit imprecise.

The degree of error being experienced can be lessened simply by the effort to do so. If you accept that because perfection is not attainable thus there is no point in trying, then you decay much faster.

People seek the decay of a society when they sense that society is maintaining something bad about it. I would agree that if a society is indeed causing an evil of some kind, then there is a need for change.

But do you change a society by completely destroying it so as to start over or do you change it by rationally adjusting the components that are causing the problem?

This is the same question as whether you should "throw the baby out with the bath wash". It makes some small degree of sense to merely start over, but you have to look at what is lost in that process and more importantly whether you will end up with anything more than you had before. You might very well end up with far less.

Would a sane man say, "My god, this baby stinks, lets throw it out and get one that doesn't stink"?

Yet this philosophy is exactly what many people accept as to how to handle religions and societies. You correctly pointed out that perfection is not attainable. Thus, why throw away the only thing you have since you already know that anything you replace it with will also be imperfect and quite possibly even worse?

It is the effort to improve TOWARD perfection that causes advancement. The need to simply give up on an entire society simply because it isn't perfect, guarantees that many people will suffer and die needlessly as the society crumbles and slowly begins to rebuild. What it rebuilds into can very easily be far worse than it was. Many who died in misery were the ones who knew how to fix what was already there but simply were not asked or heard.

Progressive efforts to improve are FAR more friendly and allow for more probable advancement than starting over in the hands of some unknown others who will determine the outcome.

People die in misery from societies decaying. If there is a better way to advance a society than to start over, then by all means try that first and don't give up on it easily else you are, in effect, a murderer with only childish regard for the lives of others.

TRY to define your words. TRY to make things work VERY hard before you give up into societal decay. To do less is the same as your own parents noticing something they didn't like about you and deciding to simply trash you and get another in replacement.

Definitions aren’t THAT hard. Make the effort and you will see how close to perfection you really were but just didn't know it.

There is NO problem that man has ever had that is not solvable today with merely what we already know. Even the problem of having no problems is also solvable with what we already know. It is just a question of trying to use what we already know in the direction of solution rather than giving up and starting over. Starting over is a VERY BAD choice to accept when people are involved.

It is only the lack of accurate effort that that causes progress to be unattainable.

 

[exploring]

The degree of error being experienced can be lessened simply by the effort to do so. If you accept that because perfection is not attainable thus there is no point in trying, then you decay much faster.

People seek the decay of a society when they sense that society is maintaining something bad about it. I would agree that if a society is indeed causing an evil of some kind, then there is a need for change.

But do you change a society by completely destroying it so as to start over or do you change it by rationally adjusting the components that are causing the problem?

This is the same question as whether you should "throw the baby out with the bath wash". It makes some small degree of sense to merely start over, but you have to look at what is lost in that process and more importantly whether you will end up with anything more than you had before. You might very well end up with far less.

Would a sane man say, "My god, this baby stinks, lets throw it out and get one that doesn't stink"?

Yet this philosophy is exactly what many people accept as to how to handle religions and societies. You correctly pointed out that perfection is not attainable. Thus, why throw away the only thing you have since you already know that anything you replace it with will also be imperfect and quite possibly even worse?

It is the effort to improve TOWARD perfection that causes advancement. The need to simply give up on an entire society simply because it isn't perfect, guarantees that many people will suffer and die needlessly as the society crumbles and slowly begins to rebuild. What it rebuilds into can very easily be far worse than it was. Many who died in misery were the ones who knew how to fix what was already there but simply were not asked or heard.

Progressive efforts to improve are FAR more friendly and allow for more probable advancement than starting over in the hands of some unknown others who will determine the outcome.

People die in misery from societies decaying. If there is a better way to advance a society than to start over, then by all means try that first and don't give up on it easily else you are, in effect, a murderer with only childish regard for the lives of others.

TRY to define your words. TRY to make things work VERY hard before you give up into societal decay. To do less is the same as your own parents noticing something they didn't like about you and deciding to simply trash you and get another in replacement.

Definitions aren’t THAT hard. Make the effort and you will see how close to perfection you really were but just didn't know it.

There is NO problem that man has ever had that is not solvable today with merely what we already know. Even the problem of having no problems is also solvable with what we already know. It is just a question of trying to use what we already know in the direction of solution rather than giving up and starting over. Starting over is a VERY BAD choice to accept when people are involved.

It is only the lack of accurate effort that that causes progress to be unattainable.

Yeah i agree i just wanted to stop anyone getting literalistic.

Meanwhile... I think I (Wittgenstein really) have given a reasonably unfuzzy description of existence with the picture/mug thing above.

Would you mind saying why you think describing existence isn't the same as drawing a word-picture of it? I accept that I use the word "picture" in the loosest possible sense. Maybe you would accept "representation"?

 

[ReluctantProphet]

..Would you mind saying why you think describing existence isn't the same as drawing a word-picture of it? I accept that I use the word "picture" in the loosest possible sense. Maybe you would accept "representation"?

If you use the word "representation", then I would have to agree. A picture, in words or in other media implies too much.

When attempting to define the qualifiers for something to exist, there isn't much to be said that actually applies to all things. This could be easily understandable considering the variety of all things and that you are looking for only the properties that are common to ALL of them.

A picture implies something displaying many relationships. I contend that there is but one property that truly applies to ALL things and that property is the property of affect on other things (beginning with yourself).

So, yes, I agree that "representation" is exactly accurate, but "picture" is misleading.

But if we accept that a definition is a representation of something in the form of thought, then to define existence is merely an issue of having a thought that represents existence. I propose that the thought that relays the significant concern involved, and in fact the only defining aspect, is the thought that for something to exist is must have affect and if anything has affect, then it exists.

My question from the original OP was simply, "Can you think of anything that exists but has absolutely no affect on anything or can you think of anything that has affect on something yet does not exist?"

If not, then I will have to conclude that existence is defined in the mind by the thought of something having affect.

This is very significant as you progress toward understanding exactly where these things of affect came from - how the universe began.

The idea that the universe began by God creating it tells you what exactly? Since the word God is not really defined as anything other than whatever began the universe, then the statement actually tells you nothing at all except that it began simply because something caused it.

If you want to know WHAT exactly caused it, then it is imperative that you understand exactly what it is first.

I am trying to clarify that the universe is the collection of all things that have the property of affect on other things and nothing more or less. This one concept is imperative to understanding how such an thing as the universe could ever have come about. Without that understanding of existence being affect, you can argue forever and never learn anything more than you already knew.


Perhaps you are not one of those who care how the universe ever began, in which case, feel free to keep playing your life away with meaningless distractions. But if you want to know something, begin by getting the definitions and concepts straight as to what it is that you are examining.

This thread is really only for those who care to advance what they know into a realization of something that they did not realize before which relates to the beginning, to God, to future, to hope, and most importantly to "the purpose of life" - even your life.

All advancement in understanding begins by agreement on concepts and their definitions.

The next step could be gained by following the thread on "my_God".

 

[exploring]

My question from the original OP was simply, "Can you think of anything that exists but has absolutely no affect on anything or can you think of anything that has affect on something yet does not exist?"

Some things, like for instance the existence of a 10 foot man, are conceivable but happen not to be the case. These things could be true but happen not to be. By my earlier definition of existence, everything that is conceivable, I would have to say that these things, that is, the negations of all the true propositions, exist, being conceivable. But they have no effect (thats how you spell the noun) on anything that is the case.

Other things, like the ability to move an immovable thing, are logically inconceivable. These are the things I would say do not exist.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

.. By my earlier definition of existence, everything that is conceivable, I would have to say that these things, that is, the negations of all the true propositions, exist, being conceivable. But they have no effect (thats how you spell the noun) on anything that is the case.

Other things, like the ability to move an immovable thing, are logically inconceivable. These are the things I would say do not exist.

Could you offer a little clarification on this?

Are you saying that existence includes anything conceivable even though those things might not exist in reality? I would agree that they exist as thoughts, but nothing more than thoughts or dreams.

Things that are not logically conceivable are still conceivable in that someone often makes a logical error which leads to thoughts of things that cannot coexist. They might conceive of an immovable object at one time and conceive of an irresistible force at another time. They do not attempt resolve to the logical conflict until they are faced with having to deal with both at the same time.

This means that until they resolve the logical conflict, they still have thoughts of logically inconceivable things but just don't know it. But as thoughts, those concepts still exist. Perhaps in reality neither exists as anything but thought.


And "affect" is the property. "Effect" is the casual result of the property.

 

[Sojourner<><]

RP I have a new line of thought regarding existence to entertain you with if you like. Keep in mind I'm not so much as trying to support or challenge your original position as add to the thread in a general sense. It goes something like this:

The concept of void, nothingness or non-existence (however you like) is purely fictitious. It's a product of our cognitive processes. The idea serves only to identify concepts that prove to be false understandings of what is "real". The mental process responsible for this illusion would work something like the following sequence, give or take a few steps. 1) I perceive something with my senses 2)Using cognition, I try to understand what I perceive and I produce an initial idea (mental construct if you will) of what it is. 3) I proceed to test the worthiness of the idea by using various interactions with what it is I am perceiving. 4) The tests prove the idea to be a false understanding of what I perceive, thus the thing which I thought that I was perceiving does not exist.

Likewise, Existence as it applies to human cognition would then be the understanding that our understanding of a particular thing in or aspect of that which we perceive is true and correct.

Now if I were to define "reality" as all of that which can be perceived but not necessarily understood then certainly all of reality has the ability to affect something in some way (Note that I am excluding the idea of that which can affect something but cannot be perceived by us since this is a product of reason). Only now we have a problem because this is where our understanding of anything both ceases and begins; there is no "is", "existence" or "non-existence" and all that is left is "reality", whatever it is.

Strangely, being a prisoner within my own mind for the time being I am now forced to attempt to use the same processes I mapped out above to ask myself: "reality", what is it? I think it also strange that God's response when asked his name was "I am that I am" in that it sounds striking reminiscent of the kind of questions and logic we are forced to in dealing with this topic.

Ok my brain hurts now. I think I'll go do something stupid for a while.