Conceptions

[Acreator]

What is existence?

For example, we might say that a unicorn exists; therefore, in our understanding of the nature of existence;

the unicorn has mass, has dimensions, has color. 

But unicorns do not exist (as far as we know), so they do not have mass, dimensions or color.

However, consider a fictional universe.

We might say that in... Harry Potter for example, unicorns exist (which they do)

The unicorn would have mass, dimensions and color in the H.P.U.

But does it exist? It exists as an idea, but can an idea contain physical properties?

 

Please, discuss calmly.

[StringJunky]

IF something is still around when there are no observers then it can be said "to exist".

[Reg Prescott]

Nice thought-provoking topic, Acreator.

 

My own take on this would be that concepts -- on pain of denying their existence altogether -- must be instantiated somewhere in the brain.

Supposing you're six years old and Dad takes you to the zoo. He points to the first kangaroo you've ever seen, "Look, son. That's a kangaroo".

You have now added to your inventory of concepts that of a kangaroo, and presumably this would be reflected by certain changes in the neurostructure of your brain.

Now, one common mistake we must be wary of is to confuse a representation with that which is represented.

For example, surely we don't suppose the concept heaviness is itself heavy, or that the concept immortality is itself immortal? And by similar reasoning, the concept Bigfoot, say, is not itself Bigfoot, any more than a painting of Bigfoot is itself Bigfoot.

Can we agree that paintings of Bigfoot exist? Well, there's bound to be a few out there somewhere, I suppose.

Can we agree that Bigfoot exists? Well, maybe yes, maybe no; but I hope it's clear that this is quite a different question from that of whether paintings (cf. concepts) of Bigfoot exist.

25 minutes ago, Acreator said:

The unicorn would have mass, dimensions and color in the H.P.U.

But does it exist? It exists as an idea, but can an idea contain physical properties?

 I'd say so, unless you're willing to bite the Cartesian bullet and deny that concepts are part of physical reality.

But again, we must be wary not to confuse the physical properties of the concept with those of that which the concept represents.

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Acreator said:

What is existence?

Existence is what has come about through the evolution of the universe, the formation of stars, the nucleosynthesis of the elements, Abiogenisis and finally the evolution of life to what we see today....It's that simple. The universe was an accident, and we are simarilly an accident.

1 hour ago, Reg Prescott said:

And by similar reasoning, the concept Bigfoot, say, is not itself Bigfoot, any more than a painting of Bigfoot is itself Bigfoot.

Can we agree that Bigfoot exists? Well, maybe yes, maybe no.

While it is certainly possible that a Bigfoot exists as per myth, there is little or no evidence to support this concept. What Bigfoot proponents claim as so called evidence  for their existence, is greatly outweighed by logic, and the lack of empirical evidence. The same sort of evidence for Bigfoot is akin to the same evidence that supposedly exists for a supreme being/creator/spaghetti monster.

Edited October 7, 2018 by beecee

[Reg Prescott]

35 minutes ago, beecee said:

While it is certainly possible that a Bigfoot exists as per myth, there is little or no evidence to support this concept. What Bigfoot proponents claim as so called evidence  for their existence, is greatly outweighed by logic, and the lack of empirical evidence. The same sort of evidence for Bigfoot is akin to the same evidence that supposedly exists for a supreme being/creator/spaghetti monster.

 

I think what you mean is "there is little or no evidence to support [the existence of] this beastie".

Evidence for the existence of the Bigfoot concept is pretty overwhelming. You just deployed it. So did I. That makes at least two of us who have the Bigfoot concept.

Again, we must try to avoid the pitfalls of confusing a representation with that which is represented.

 

35 minutes ago, beecee said:

The same sort of evidence for Bigfoot is akin to the same evidence that supposedly exists for a supreme being/creator/spaghetti monster.

 Here we run into the same problem as we had before, beecee: what does, and what does not, constitute evidence?

Now, just to be clear, I'm not a Bigfoot believer myself, but to illustrate the point, I recently watched a documentary about the aforementioned hairy critter on Youtube. The scientific expert who was commissioned to commentate at one point told us "there is no evidence for Bigfoot". Twenty minutes later or so, the same expert told us "the evidence for Bigfoot is weak". (I'll post a link if you like, assuming I can find it again).

I trust the problem is clear: on pain of contradiction or equivocation, the evidence for such-and-such cannot be at once non-existent and weak.

Edited October 7, 2018 by Reg Prescott

[beecee]

6 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

 

I think what you mean is "there is little or no evidence to support this beastie".

Evidence for the existence of the Bigfoot concept is pretty overwhelming. You just deployed it. So did I. That makes at least two of us who have the Bigfoot concept.

Again, we must try to avoid the pitfalls of confusing a representation with that which is represented.

Again, we need to avoid the pit falls of your attempted pedantic contrary nonsense.

[swansont]

Since the issue of mythical creatures seems to be confusing, ponder this: does a hole exist? Is it real?

[Reg Prescott]

28 minutes ago, swansont said:

Since the issue of mythical creatures seems to be confusing, ponder this: does a hole exist? Is it real?

 It's a good question, and one that tests our intuitions. 

My first reaction, counterintuitive though it may seem at first, is to say "yes!" (though interested to hear other members' thoughts)

After all, what is the Grand Canyon, say, if not a great big hole in the ground? Yet no one seems to deny it bona fide ontological status.

How about that hole in our faces that we use to speak and eat, and er, other things too? Ever been told "Shut your hole!" What is one supposed to reply? "Pfft! There's no such thing!"

Then we could talk doughnuts... LOL

You guys fill in -- pardon the pun -- the rest.

 

Edit P.S. And consider this: If holes are not real, then a hole in your parachute is no cause for alarm. Right?

Edited October 7, 2018 by Reg Prescott

[studiot]

9 hours ago, Acreator said:

 

Please, discuss calmly.

Yes and I would like to thank you for carrying on just such a discussion in another recent thread here about properties of materials, although we disagreed. +1

9 hours ago, Acreator said:

What is existence?

A good question, but not a simple one to answer.

40 minutes ago, swansont said:

Since the issue of mythical creatures seems to be confusing, ponder this: does a hole exist? Is it real?

Swansont you stole my favourite line.

 

7 hours ago, beecee said:

Existence is what has come about through the evolution of the universe, the formation of stars, the nucleosynthesis of the elements, Abiogenisis and finally the evolution of life to what we see today....It's that simple. The universe was an accident, and we are simarilly an accident.

Beecee conflates his meaning with reality, which is actually a different thing with a  much more limited meaning.

 

So to existence.

English and German create new concepts by adding modifying words to 'existing' ones.
English creates phrases such as concrete noun and abstract noun.
German physically conjoins the words to form new words.
The German method makes for shorter sentences but longer words, th eEnglish method makes for longer sentences employing more shorter words.
The English method makes further modification easier.

The whole of Mathematics is an artificial construct that did not develop from the BigBang (which I think is off topic here) yet mathematicians have a phrase

There exists and even a symbol for it.    [math]\exists [/math]

The meaning here is that it is consistent with a stated collection of rules.

For example There exists a solution to the equation x² = 4

This is quite outside Beecees definition, but equally is not applicable to lengths of pipe, baulks of lumber and so on.

 

We can extend this idea further to look at Strange's question from elsewhere. "Does Harry Potter exist?"

Well the answer must be, yes in the abstract sense it is consistent with the construct of Rowling novels in particular and English literature in general.

 

So what other considerations are there?

 

Well I can offer the observation that something can be said to exist in reality if it can interact with other objects in reality, even though it does not possess some or all of their properties.

For instance I contend that a shadow has existence, even though it possess no mass.

 

Since Reg has mentioned donuts,

A hole is the topological difference between a donut and a sphere.

 

 

 

 

Edited October 7, 2018 by studiot

[Acreator]

31 minutes ago, swansont said:

Since the issue of mythical creatures seems to be confusing, ponder this: does a hole exist? Is it real?

A hole is not an entity. 

A hole is the absence of an entity

therefore the concept of a hole exists, but a hole entity does not.

The grand canyon exists, and truthfully even I think of it as a hole that is an entity, but objectivity, the Grand Canyon is just another synonym for hole. It is really the walls and floor of the Canyon that we mean, not the hole itself.

pfft

In the case of donut-holes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tikcuUnbg0I. we can see that a there is an entity in the center, and then the entity is removed, thus creating a donut-hole.

 

Unless we are talking a black hole, but again, this plays with the understanding of language.

 

5 minutes ago, studiot said:

For instance I contend that a shaw has existence, even though it possess no mass.

Excuse me, but what is a shaw?

 

[beecee]

33 minutes ago, swansont said:

Since the issue of mythical creatures seems to be confusing, ponder this: does a hole exist? Is it real?

I can vouch for the existence of holes as I have had the misfortune of falling into a couple after a few beers!

[studiot]

6 minutes ago, Acreator said:

Excuse me, but what is a shaw?

Yes I made a spelling mistake, which I have corrected.

Sorry, shadow.

[Acreator]

9 minutes ago, beecee said:

I can vouch for the existence of holes as I have had the misfortune of falling into a couple after a few beers!

But isn't existence defined as: 

1. the state or fact of existing; being. (Dictionary.com)

In which case, a hole, in and of itself, it cannot exist because it has no physical being (since we have not ascended yet, there's not much else for it to exist with)

The entity that was where the hole resides now had physical being, but it went away. 

We don't move a box from A to B and then look at A and say "Look at that hole" where the box once was, it is empty space, the box is no longer there.

The same for a ground-hole, dirt/stone/concrete has been moved and now there is empty space.

 

Keep discussing calmly

 

Edited October 7, 2018 by Acreator
added a "d" to "move"

[beecee]

Just now, Acreator said:

But isn't existence defined as: 

1. the state or fact of existing; being. (Dictionary.com)

In which case, a hole, in and of itself, it cannot exist because it has no physical being (since we have not ascended yet, there's not much else for it to exist with)

Of course a hole exists. Just as space exists, and a magnetic field. Something need not be physical to exist.

[Strange]

11 minutes ago, Acreator said:

A hole is not an entity. 

The existence of holes in semiconductors is essential to the operation of your phone, computer, etc. They have charge and mass, and they move. Sounds like they exist to me. 

[beecee]

4 minutes ago, Acreator said:

We don't move a box from A to B and then look at A and say "Look at that hole" where the box once was, it is empty space, the box is no longer there.

And space? Perhaps your interpretaion of "nothing" is in question.

Edited October 7, 2018 by beecee

[Carrock]

Earn money from an abstract concept:

Permit people, for a fee, to move a parking space from a crowded location to their car's normal location.

Edited October 7, 2018 by Carrock

[Sensei]

9 hours ago, StringJunky said:

IF something is still around when there are no observers then it can be said "to exist".

I can run game, not observe it, keep the plug in, and it's still working.. But then AI of my game is starting doing whatever they want..

 

 

[studiot]

6 minutes ago, Carrock said:

Earn money from an abstract concept:

Permit people, for a fee, to move a parking space from a crowded location to their car's normal location.

Interesting example of interaction I never thought of.  +1

 

Some folks achieve this (illegally) by placing a Police traffic cone on their 'space'.

[Strange]

7 hours ago, studiot said:

Some folks achieve this (illegally) by placing a Police traffic cone on their 'space'.

You mean, by hiding the hole. As it isn’t possible to hide something that doesn’t exist this must mean holes exist. 

[studiot]

35 minutes ago, Strange said:

You mean, by hiding the hole. As it isn’t possible to hide something that doesn’t exist this must mean holes exist. 

Of course holes have physical existence.

They can interact with physical objects modifying the physical properties of those object.

For isntance a steel sheet is impervious to the passage of water.

Knock a hole through it and Voila.

Edited October 7, 2018 by studiot

[beecee]

I've even on one occasion slept in a hole. So yeah, they exist and are real.  

[Phi for All]

57 minutes ago, beecee said:

I've even on one occasion slept in a hole.

Motel 6 on the PanAm Expressway in San Antonio, Texas? 

[beecee]

2 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Motel 6 on the PanAm Expressway in San Antonio, Texas? 

Actually about 40 kms outside of a little town called Parkes 360 kms west of Sydney. [It has been shut down now] 

Parkes, home of course to the Parkes Radio Telescope 

[Sensei]

2 hours ago, studiot said:

Of course holes have physical existence.

Hole is like empty room in hotel/hostel..

It's waiting for new host..

 

If you ionize e.g. Helium atom to He⁺¹ or to He⁺²

is this empty space for electron(s) still "waiting" for it/them.. ?

 

 

11 minutes ago, beecee said:

Actually about 40 kms outside of a little town called Parkes 360 kms west of Sydney. [It has been shut down now] 

That's really pity. It should be taken by amateurs astrophysics/astronomers instead...