What is the nature of our existence?

[Genady]

4 hours ago, naitche said:

Then why do you believe there is such a thing as existence?

It is not my belief. It is my understanding. I find it consistent, but I would change it given reason and evidence to the contrary.

4 hours ago, naitche said:

In what context?

We are discussing the mathematical context here.

[Steve81]

After careful consideration, I have concluded based on inter-related biological/psychological factors that the "meaning/nature" of human life is to help others to the best of our abilities, and achieve happiness. 

[Genady]

8 hours ago, naitche said:

Not much point in the topic if your belief is that existence Is. Unsupported.

I think it is supported by facts. Here is a fact of existence, for example:

For every number, a prime number exists which is greater than that number.

[TheVat]

12 hours ago, Genady said:

think so. It's just 5. What is there to measure?

I think you are correct, because any proposed measurement would lead to circular logic, with no new information acquired.

5, the number, is itself a measure.  

Measurements, in this context, would be like saying My yardstick is 1 yard long.  

 

 

 

Edited August 13, 2023 by TheVat
pnsiehibjejc

[Steve81]

1 minute ago, TheVat said:

I think you are correct, because any proposed measurement would lead to circular logic, with no new information acquired.

5, the number, is itself a measure.  

Measurements, in this context, would be like saying My yardstick is a 1 yard long.  

Makes sense to me at least.

Edited August 13, 2023 by Steve81

[Genady]

40 minutes ago, TheVat said:

5, the number, is itself a measure.

Exactly!

[Steve81]

3 hours ago, Steve81 said:

After careful consideration, I have concluded based on inter-related biological/psychological factors that the "meaning/nature" of human life is to help others to the best of our abilities, and achieve happiness. 

Addendum one: given that interest-excitement is also hard coded into our DNA, it would naturally follow that we should learn as much as is feasible, which in turn maximizes our ability to help others.

[naitche]

3 hours ago, Genady said:

Exactly!

Yes. Its the measure. Of a value. In the case of your yard stick, the value is distance.

There must be a value given. Is the electron still an electron with out its property value to Be? Its the objective and subjective at once. One part to state, or constitution, the other to direction. The value must be provided 1st, to inform the state 

Edited August 13, 2023 by naitche

[Genady]

7 minutes ago, naitche said:

Is the electron still an electron with out its property value to Be?

I think it is an electron, regardless.

[studiot]

I really think this discussion is pushing against the boundaries of language here.

It should be remembered that in both ordinary and scientific English many words have not only multiple meanings but also multiple shades of those meanings.

Furthermore folks sometimes try to combine words that although the combination follows the rules of grammar it results in nonsense, simply because some words cannot be combined with some others.

Existence is such a word.

For example if you have a hole, what does half a hole look like ?

Is a hole of measure 5 the same of different from a hole of twice its measure (whatever measure means) or is it one hole or two holes or what ?

Many of these 'philosophical' arguments that rand round and round in circles, like this thread is doing, or ran into an impasse, have found their counterparts in more modern mathematics where some solutions have been founf but these are not altogether satisfactory.

[MSC]

5 hours ago, studiot said:

Many of these 'philosophical' arguments that rand round and round in circles, like this thread is doing, or ran into an impasse, have found their counterparts in more modern mathematics where some solutions have been founf but these are not altogether satisfactory.

Not for lack of trying; I should have realised folk would get caught up in the mathematical aspect of the conversation. Throw the contextualist epistemology index at people, and they choose to focus on arguing as to whether or not mathematics exists? I don't even understand that but I'm biased so why would I? 

5 hours ago, studiot said:

Furthermore folks sometimes try to combine words that although the combination follows the rules of grammar it results in nonsense, simply because some words cannot be combined with some others.

Existence is such a word.

Explain please? 

[Genady]

6 minutes ago, MSC said:

they choose to focus on arguing as to whether or not mathematics exists?

I actually try to argue that existence of mathematical objects is a model for existence of all objects.

[MSC]

3 minutes ago, Genady said:

I actually try to argue that existence of mathematical objects is a model for existence of all objects.

I'd agree. In my index, there is an argument to be made that between the universal knowledge and physical knowledge there could be a mathematical one. However, I'd say Mathematics is universal knowledge. Although I'm realising the index is now poorly labeled, because I only just started incorporating DIKW into it. So each section of the index now splits into 4 groups. Data, information, knowledge and wisdom. 

Developing Non-reductionist theories of relationship and data hierarchies within the index and its sections, is currently where I'm at. 

[studiot]

6 hours ago, MSC said:

Not for lack of trying; I should have realised folk would get caught up in the mathematical aspect of the conversation. Throw the contextualist epistemology index at people, and they choose to focus on arguing as to whether or not mathematics exists? I don't even understand that but I'm biased so why would I? 

 

I am trying to keep my discussion at least covering a much wider field than just Mathematics.

I am impressed by your choice of title an in particular the usee of the phrase  'nature of existence'.

In my opinion this is so much better than asking what is existence, as so many do.

I am also impressed with 'the nature' of your discussion in this thread.

So +1 for all that

6 hours ago, MSC said:

Explain please?

Existence is a noun.

The English language admits of two kinds of noun viz abstract and concrete.

This is very useful in exploring existence and its nature.

It is useful because it is possible because concepts are, in general, abstract nouns but we are, in general, interested in the effects of something in the physical world.

So it is easy to see how a concret noun like 'football' can affect another concrete noun like 'window' (by breaking it).

But the game becomes really interesting when you realise that abstract nouns can affect concrete ones and the action in the physical world can give rise to (many) abstract nouns like toughness, vulnerability and so on.

 

 

[Genady]

12 hours ago, studiot said:

their counterparts in more modern mathematics where some solutions have been founf but these are not altogether satisfactory.

I'm curious, which solutions you allude to.

[studiot]

1 hour ago, Genady said:

I'm curious, which solutions you allude to.

I assume so are referring to this rather inelegant piece of English. Sorry about the spelling.

13 hours ago, studiot said:

Many of these 'philosophical' arguments that rand round and round in circles, like this thread is doing, or ran into an impasse, have found their counterparts in more modern mathematics where some solutions have been founf but these are not altogether satisfactory.

 

First let me point out that existance in mathematics means is consistent with the axioms and other conditions assumed.
Most of Mathematics is composed of abstract nouns.

Whereas in Physics we are generally looking for existance to mean the physical instantiation or possibility of one, although there are abstract nouns in Physics as well.

I understand the OP to lean towards the Physics meaning by it use of the word 'our' in the title.

 

Some immediate examples in Maths, as you ask,  would be the development of 'orders of logic' and their use in resolving the paradoxes (@Russell etc) that arise in first order point set theory.

 

I am preparing to be away for a few days so will probably not be able to respond again until next weekend.

[Genady]

12 hours ago, MSC said:

I'd agree. In my index, there is an argument to be made that between the universal knowledge and physical knowledge there could be a mathematical one. However, I'd say Mathematics is universal knowledge. Although I'm realising the index is now poorly labeled, because I only just started incorporating DIKW into it. So each section of the index now splits into 4 groups. Data, information, knowledge and wisdom. 

Developing Non-reductionist theories of relationship and data hierarchies within the index and its sections, is currently where I'm at. 

If you want to discuss your index then, I think, you better open a different thread, separately from the existence question.

[TheVat]

I was unsure what was meant by "my index."  @MSC ?

Is this a specific meaning of index used in philosophy?

[naitche]

On 8/14/2023 at 5:55 AM, Genady said:

I think it is an electron, regardless.

What is the basis for its realization?

As a measure of Nothing. Its not evidenced.

Mathematics does not 'work' with out the values given. It is based on those. Subjective to inform objective.

If '5'  exists independently of the values brought to it, its irrelevant. The sum of nothing. No purpose, direction or potential.

You asked what would be the interactive to mathematics. Value to the sum, or the summation of nothing. It expresses nothing. 

Edited August 16, 2023 by naitche

[Genady]

3 minutes ago, naitche said:

The sum of nothing.

No, The sum of anything.

 

3 minutes ago, naitche said:

You asked what would be the interactive to mathematics.

I have never asked this. I've asked,

 

On 8/10/2023 at 2:42 PM, Genady said:

What would be the "interactions" in mathematics? 

 

[naitche]

15 minutes ago, Genady said:

No, The sum of anything.

Without  the value of property, theres isn't anything to summate.  It can't be realized. 

15 minutes ago, Genady said:

 

I have never asked this. I've asked,

 

 

My answer remains the same.

Edited August 16, 2023 by naitche

[Genady]

1 minute ago, naitche said:

Without  the value of property, theres isn't anything to summate.  It can't be realized. 

My answer remains the same.

It is not without value. It is without fixed value. It allows for any value to be assigned.

[naitche]

On 8/13/2023 at 8:44 PM, Genady said:

 

We are discussing the mathematical context here.

And the presumption has been that the nature of existence is mathematics.

On 8/14/2023 at 12:29 AM, Steve81 said:

After careful consideration, I have concluded based on inter-related biological/psychological factors that the "meaning/nature" of human life is to help others to the best of our abilities, and achieve happiness. 

Develop response abilities in recognition of existence and our contribution to its manifestations.

On 8/14/2023 at 12:50 AM, Genady said:

I think it is supported by facts. Here is a fact of existence, for example:

For every number, a prime number exists which is greater than that number.

A mere property of existence, which you say is irrelevant. As is your own experience and understanding as a mere property of existence.

On 8/14/2023 at 7:42 AM, studiot said:

I really think this discussion is pushing against the boundaries of language here.

 

I believe the language is equal to the objective, and the presumptions of its properties is misplaced. It is based on both subjective and the objective values- Both the State and direction of existence.

On 8/14/2023 at 1:04 PM, Genady said:

I actually try to argue that existence of mathematical objects is a model for existence of all objects.

Then I think you must accept its most basic premises.

On 8/16/2023 at 10:41 AM, Genady said:

It is not without value. It is without fixed value. It allows for any value to be assigned.

No. It has none.  It is not realized until the value is assumed into its being.

Science is not realized with out recognition of the  properties we summate equal to an objective/existence. Its state, and the content to realize it.

What state of existence are you looking for, if your belief is that  its properties are irrelevant?

 

Edited August 17, 2023 by naitche

[Genady]

2 hours ago, naitche said:

And the presumption has been that the nature of existence is mathematics.

No!

[naitche]

On 8/14/2023 at 1:04 PM, Genady said:

I actually try to argue that existence of mathematical objects is a model for existence of all objects.

Then how should I have interpreted this?