What Do You Mean "Exist"?

[dumpsterdiver45]

I define existence as 'having the capacity (information) to in-form a perceiving mind'. I also agree with BabylonWeary's comment, "Without truth, there is no meaning to the word at all...", or that there's no meaning to information (and therefore existence) without possession of quality, either true or false.

 

[TillICollapse]

How about this:

Existence is an objective event. Objective in this context, meaning independent of or not reliant upon human perception. Event in this context meaning anything that persists in some capacity in space-time.

Yes ? No ?

 

[juvenissun]

Some people said that truth is what exists.

Well, leaving the issue of truth aside, what does it mean to "exist"?

I find the word to be in-definable and only graspable intuitively, an therefore not useful for 'hard' reasoning.

Things detectable.

 

[juvenissun]

Take a hammer & hit your thumb with it. If it hurts, you exist. I guarantee that will not be only graspable intuitively; you will know.

Job done.

Do you know Buddhism? A Buddhistic monk will let you cut off his arm or leg for a good reason. It hurts, but he will insist: it does not exist anyway. A monk always think his physical body is not real.

 

[durangodawood]

If he actually did exist, he would have those properties, and those are just some of the properties that would distinguish him from non-existence. I'm sure that some existing human beings have the properties of rosy cheeks, a bushy beard, and jollity, such as possessed by some Santa impersonators. Those properties do distinguish those living individuals from non-existence, because non-existence implies no properties at all.

Let's not confuse the ability to state or imagine properties with the existence of some physical entity. There is a difference between a concept and a referent to that concept. There is a difference between the idea of Santa Claus (which has brain/mental properties) and a living human being or "elf" that we might call Santa Claus (which has the sort of properties one would except from a biological entity).


eudaimonia,

Mark

Sounds like youre saying: things that exist must have properties that exist (rather than imaginary ones).

By doing this seamless wordplay, I'm thinking that we're not really getting any closer to a solid meaning for "to exist".

 

[durangodawood]

Take a hammer & hit your thumb with it. If it hurts, you exist. I guarantee that will not be only graspable intuitively; you will know.

Job done.

I'm looking for a definition that satisfies all cases, and not just one.

 

[durangodawood]

I don't think it's as simple as you presented. If the ascribed properties of unicorns or Santas are not really properties at all, then we need a way to distinguish real properties from imaginary ones. We've gone from 'how do we know if a thing exists' to 'how do we know if a property exists'.

Now whiteness, I suppose, is a real existing property (at least of some things). New-fallen snow is white; Snow has that property; and snow is real. Santa's beard is reputed to be white, but it doesn't really have that property, since Santa doesn't exist. So the property-ness doesn't seem to help much.

For a thing to exist, does that mean it has to be perceived in some way (and not just mentally)? That perception or observation yields a (real) property of the thing, and therefore the thing exists, because it has a property?

My post #25. You got to it first and explained it better.

 

[durangodawood]

Things detectable.

Detectable by who/what?

 

[Catherineanne]

I'm looking for a definition that satisfies all cases, and not just one.

That does not seem terribly sensible, to be honest.

Each paradigm will need its own proof, but mine is the most direct.

 

[durangodawood]

That does not seem terribly sensible, to be honest.

Each paradigm will need its own proof, but mine is the most direct.

So you think there is no single sensible definition of, or meaning for, the idea of "to exist"?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Sounds like youre saying: things that exist must have properties that exist (rather than imaginary ones).

That's not how I would word that.

There's no need for your introduced circularity. I suppose that one can speak of properties existing, but rather it is the entity that exists, possessing properties. There is need to treat the properties as entities in themselves, though an analytical mind can, of course, break anything down that way.

I'm thinking that we're not really getting any closer to a solid meaning for "to exist".

I think that I've already been successful. There's no need to turn this into a science exercise, as some are doing, because that is already saying too much, and is mistakenly turning metaphysics into physics.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[juvenissun]

Detectable by who/what?

Anyone, anything.
I detected it, it is real to me. You do not know, then it is not real to you.

 

[juvenissun]

I'm looking for a definition that satisfies all cases, and not just one.

Then forget it. It is not a fair request.

 

[Paradoxum]

It will, but it exists because it has attributes. If "it" had no attributes at all, we couldn't say that "it" exists at all. We'd be talking about nonexistence.

I get what you mean, but I'm not sure that's an objection to my definition.

I think we are using the word 'attribute' slightly differently. If I imagine a table, I might say it's attribute is that it's two meters long. You might say it only has that attribute if it actually exists.

So perhaps I could say: If a thing exists, then that thing will be structured and interact based on it's detailed description?

 

[Catherineanne]

So you think there is no single sensible definition of, or meaning for, the idea of "to exist"?

There is no single sensible definition of the word 'pudding' that will encompass black, rice, steak and kidney and Yorkshire, inter alia. Exist is necessarily more complex.

Perhaps you expect too much in wanting a simple explanation of a complex concept.

 

[Catherineanne]

I get what you mean, but I'm not sure that's an objection to my definition.

I think we are using the word 'attribute' slightly differently. If I imagine a table, I might say it's attribute is that it's two meters long. You might say it only has that attribute if it actually exists.

So perhaps I could say: If a thing exists, then that thing will be structured and interact based on it's detailed description?

In semantic terms, definitions are made according to the minimum necessary and sufficient conditions.

Man, for example, might look like this:

+ human
+ adult
- female

To distinguish for girl, woman or boy would be a simple matter of changing one or two perameters.

For table the conditions might be:

- animate
+ flat surface on top
+ 1 or more leg/s

For exist I am afraid the necessary and sufficient conditions turn out to be rather circular; existence would seem to define itself:

+ in esse (to be in being)

 

[Eudaimonist]

I think we are using the word 'attribute' slightly differently. If I imagine a table, I might say it's attribute is that it's two meters long. You might say it only has that attribute if it actually exists.

Yes, it would only have that attribute if the table exists, but perhaps we could say that the imaginary table has the "imaginary attribute" that it is two meters long. I don't mean to imply anything mystical here. I'm just saying that in your mental list of attributes for the imaginary table (in your mental model), you've decided that it is two meters long, or would be if it had actually existed. It's just a decision on your part.

So perhaps I could say: If a thing exists, then that thing will be structured and interact based on it's detailed description?

I don't think that is good as a definition, because it gets too detailed. It's more like a physics description.

For instance, while it may be the case that all possible entities interact with other entities, that wouldn't mean that an entity that didn't react with other entities would not exist. It might not exist in our universe, but it might still have an independent existence. Perhaps there even is some quantum waveform like this that we can never detect, but we'll never know.

Also, "structured" just sounds like a restatement of "having characteristics". I'm not sure that this adds anything.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I mean by exist something transparent. I look at something, and it exists, but the "existence" bit is invisible. Does that make sense?

 

[Eudaimonist]

I mean by exist something transparent. I look at something, and it exists, but the "existence" bit is invisible. Does that make sense?

No, not really. Can you explain that any further?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Colter]

Some people said that truth is what exists.

Well, leaving the issue of truth aside, what does it mean to "exist"?

I find the word to be in-definable and only graspable intuitively, an therefore not useful for 'hard' reasoning.

Reading the posts here it seems that it's difficult to talk about existence apart from cause and perception.