Author Topic: What is existence?  (Read 4831 times)

Re: What is existence?
« Reply #30 on: June 10, 2014, 08:50:48 AM »
Then the Absolute Truth, in regards to the content of the box, is this grogan. Whatever that is/means.

The Absolute Truth is the sum of the matter in the entire universe. Is this really so hard to grasp for you?

I am not moving goalposts. YOU just don't want to understand anything, and have your biased suppositions about me.

Depending on how you define matter this may not apply:
We need to build up from our current knowledge to fill in the pieces of the puzzle, what you do by defining your "Absolute Truth" is imagining where the borders of the puzzle are before we even get there. The assumption you make about the universe is based on our current knowledge, and regards future knowledge. It's assuming we know enough about the universe now and giving a truth-statement about it.

If matter is "anything that matters":
It's possible that there exist things outside of our means to observe them, perhaps we will never observe these things and they're all around us, in a state that doesn't interact with us and anything we may ever observe. Are those things part of your "Absolute Truth"? Because if they're not, which I'm fairly certain of as you define "Absolute Truth" with matter(Which is also vague, please define), then saying "Absolute Truth" is no different from "the universe". If it does include things beyond our existence, read my earlier post about things like that.

Just be clear with your definitions please, makes things much easier.

To everyone else; please make sure I get things right.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2014, 10:43:42 AM by Ferrin »

Offline DunkleSeele

Re: What is existence?
« Reply #31 on: June 10, 2014, 09:28:16 AM »
Depending on how you define matter this may not apply:
We need to build up from our current knowledge to fill in the pieces of the puzzle, what you do by defining your "Absolute Truth" is imagining where the borders of the puzzle are before we even get there. The assumption you make about the universe is based on our current knowledge, and regards future knowledge. It's assuming we know enough about the universe now and giving a truth-statement about it.

If matter is "anything that matters":
It's highly likely that there exist things outside of our means to observe them, perhaps we will never observe these things and they're all around us, in a state that doesn't interact with us and anything we may ever observe. Are those things part of your "Absolute Truth"? Because if they're not, which I'm fairly certain of as you define "Absolute Truth" with matter(Which is also vague, please define), then saying "Absolute Truth" is no different from "the universe". If it does include things beyond our existence, read my earlier post about things like that.

Just be clear with your definitions please, makes things much easier.

To everyone else; please make sure I get things right.
Well, I for one have a bit of an issue with the part I've bolded. As I understand it - and please correct me if I'm wrong - you're referring to something "supernatural", in the sense that these things aren't subject to our natural laws. If this is the case I have to point out that, so far, there's not even a hint of such things existing, let alone them being "all around us". Can you please shed some light on your thoughts?

Re: What is existence?
« Reply #32 on: June 10, 2014, 10:40:20 AM »
Well, I for one have a bit of an issue with the part I've bolded. As I understand it - and please correct me if I'm wrong - you're referring to something "supernatural", in the sense that these things aren't subject to our natural laws. If this is the case I have to point out that, so far, there's not even a hint of such things existing, let alone them being "all around us". Can you please shed some light on your thoughts?

Oh oops, disregard the "highly likely", I didn't proofread it properly. It's impossible to determine the likelyhood of such things as they will never be relevant to us whatsoever, for all intents and purposes they would not exist for us. What I mean is that it's possible for things to exist even if we have no way of ever interacting or observing the effect of these things. I did not mean anything supernatural as any effect these things would have on things we -can- observe would mean it's by definition not something not effecting our existence. And as I said earlier, it's meaningless to consider these things as they by definition have no effect on us.

I hope this cleared it up a bit, I did not mean to apply anything that has an effect on us in any way whatsoever, and just the hypothetical existence of things we can never observe. Thanks for pointing it out. :)

Re: What is existence?
« Reply #33 on: June 10, 2014, 11:05:19 AM »
So this thread about existence is actually about policymaking?

I'm going to need a drink.
Quote from: \"the_antithesis\"
Faith says, "I believe this and I don\'t care what you say, I cannot possibly be wrong." Faith is an act of pride.

Quote from: \"AllPurposeAtheist\"
The moral high ground was dug up and made into a walmart apparently today.

Tornadoes caused: 2, maybe 3.

Offline frosty

Re: What is existence?
« Reply #34 on: June 10, 2014, 04:37:05 PM »
Humanity has had at least two great moments of arrogance, the first being that a "god" created the universe just for them, the second that they and they alone define what is and what is not.

But go tell a religious person that and they will immediately reply saying you are the arrogant one. It's a back and forth shitfest that seems, literally, like it never ends.

In fact, I find it interesting that many posts here characterize faith as an act of pride/arrogance/hubris because I've been labelled as such in my many gruelling battles with Theists on the Internet over the years.

Both sides think the opposition is arrogant. Who can settle the issue once and for all? I don't think anybody can.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2014, 04:38:42 PM by frosty »

Re: What is existence?
« Reply #35 on: June 10, 2014, 04:52:26 PM »
But go tell a religious person that and they will immediately reply saying you are the arrogant one. It's a back and forth shitfest that seems, literally, like it never ends.

In fact, I find it interesting that many posts here characterize faith as an act of pride/arrogance/hubris because I've been labelled as such in my many gruelling battles with Theists on the Internet over the years.

Both sides think the opposition is arrogant. Who can settle the issue once and for all? I don't think anybody can.

The arrogance of the theist argument is thus: I don't know, therefore I know that it was my god.
The atheist "arrogance" is thus: I don't know, therefore I don't know.

By making the claim to have an insight to whatever it is, even after admitting that one has no knowledge, displays arrogance. By admitting a persons knowledge limitations is not arrogance(at least not by any definition of the word Ive ever heard/used).
Science doesn't give a damn about religions, because "damns" are not measurable units and therefore have no place in research. As soon as it's possible to detect damns, we'll quantize perdition and number all the levels of hell. Until then, science doesn't care.

Offline frosty

Re: What is existence?
« Reply #36 on: June 10, 2014, 05:21:46 PM »
The arrogance of the theist argument is thus: I don't know, therefore I know that it was my god.
The atheist "arrogance" is thus: I don't know, therefore I don't know.

By making the claim to have an insight to whatever it is, even after admitting that one has no knowledge, displays arrogance. By admitting a persons knowledge limitations is not arrogance(at least not by any definition of the word Ive ever heard/used).

I think after what you said, the religious person would just reply back with emotion, testifying "You are the one with the arrogance since you don't believe in god" or something to that effect. It's what I seen literally every time I've argued with a Theist on this matter. I guess you could say this is like the equivalent of slamming your cranium into a brick wall, repeatedly. The Theist will simply keep repeating themselves and it's like arguing with a 4-8 year old (around that age group).

Re: What is existence?
« Reply #37 on: June 10, 2014, 06:24:03 PM »
I think after what you said, the religious person would just reply back with emotion, testifying "You are the one with the arrogance since you don't believe in god" or something to that effect. It's what I seen literally every time I've argued with a Theist on this matter. I guess you could say this is like the equivalent of slamming your cranium into a brick wall, repeatedly. The Theist will simply keep repeating themselves and it's like arguing with a 4-8 year old (around that age group).

Most definitely, the issue is that the theist is arguing from arrogance and a sense of threat(that what they base their world view on is incorrect) and then constructs a invalid counter argument to "support" their claim that the atheist position of "I don't know, therefore I don't know" is based off of arrogance. The best counter argument to theist claims of god I have found is:
"Where is your scientifically backed, testable, repeatable, peer reviewed proof?"
That "argument" results in some rather humorous responses from theists. And yes some still come off and try to claim that a request for valid evidence as arrogant. At which time I break out the old dictionary definition of the word.
 an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions(Merriam-Webster).
As I make not claims nor do I have an attitude of superiority because of my being an atheist I must assume that I am not arrogant. By taking a stance of non-belief I am not claiming that a god does not exist, only that there is a lack of evidence to support the assertion that one exists. If there ever comes a time that evidence becomes available that a god exists(and is actually valid) then I would acknowledge said beings existence. Would I worship this being? Probably not, but I would be more than willing to admit that it exists.
Science doesn't give a damn about religions, because "damns" are not measurable units and therefore have no place in research. As soon as it's possible to detect damns, we'll quantize perdition and number all the levels of hell. Until then, science doesn't care.

Offline Aupmanyav

Re: What is existence?
« Reply #38 on: June 11, 2014, 12:09:14 AM »
We do not know at present. It depends on the answer to the question whether energy/matter is eternal or it arose out of 'absolute nothing'. And what is the relation between existence and non-existence.
"Brahma Satyam Jagan-mithya" (Brahman is the truth, the observed is an illusion)
"Sarve Khalu Idam Brahma" (All this here is Brahman)

Re: What is existence?
« Reply #39 on: October 10, 2014, 12:58:50 PM »
Existence is not a predicate (Kant). Science deals with quantifiable properties. Therefore a question such as "why is there something rather than nothing" is outside its area of knowledge. Science deals with empirical data. Existence is not a measurable property, because it is not a property. The most science can say about "why there is something rather than nothing" is that the universe is a brute fact and has no explanation.

Re: What is existence?
« Reply #40 on: October 10, 2014, 01:07:03 PM »
Of course one can speculate. One theory popular with many physicists is that before creation there was nothing,including logic. Therefore an absurdity such as getting something from nothing is possible. They even invented a new logic ( a does not =a) called paraconsistent logic.
Basically, that is saying that the ultimate explanation as to why there is something rather than nothing is that there is no explanation. Explanations ( for us humans ) require a logic that makes sense to us. Simply saying that A does not = a is like saying "a square circle". Sure we can say that,but can anyone know what a square circle is?
« Last Edit: October 10, 2014, 01:12:42 PM by wittgenstein »

Re: What is existence?
« Reply #41 on: October 10, 2014, 01:16:36 PM »
Sure we can say that,but can anyone know what a square circle is?

It's a circle where each corner is a right angle.
Winner of WitchSabrinas Best Advice Award 2012


We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real
tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. -Plato

Offline AllPurposeAtheist

Re: What is existence?
« Reply #42 on: October 10, 2014, 02:16:00 PM »
All hail my new signature!

Admit it. You're secretly green with envy.

Re: What is existence?
« Reply #43 on: October 11, 2014, 07:57:03 AM »
It's a circle where each corner is a right angle.
That does not get rid of the self contradiction. " A circle with each corner being a right angle " is a self-contradictory sentence. Similarly, no one can understand what a married bachelor is.
Granted, self-contradictions are many in quantum mechanics. My point is that for us humans they explain nothing.
Many physicists have abandoned hope of any explanation and have become logical positivists. * In other words they accept that their equations accurately predict results but explain nothing.
* Logical positism is famous for being self refuting. Logical positism's fundamental belief is that if a proposition is neither analytical or empirical it is gibberish.  Is the proposition " any proposition that is neither analytical or empirical is gibberish " analytical?   Nope! Is it empirical?  Nope! Therefore the central idea of logical positism is gibberish!
« Last Edit: October 11, 2014, 08:02:58 AM by wittgenstein »

Offline Hakurei Reimu

Re: What is existence?
« Reply #44 on: October 12, 2014, 07:13:10 AM »
That does not get rid of the self contradiction. " A circle with each corner being a right angle " is a self-contradictory sentence. Similarly, no one can understand what a married bachelor is.

Who cares about self-contradiction? What was asked is whether a "square circle" is comprehensible. That's a different requirement, and a square circle is indeed comprehensible — comprehensible enough to know that there, in fact, cannot be any such things because the necessary requirements do indeed contradict each other. Similarly with "married bachelor." It is a concept that is perfectly comprehensible, and because we can comprehend it, we realize that there can be no such thing.

Granted, self-contradictions are many in quantum mechanics. My point is that for us humans they explain nothing.
Many physicists have abandoned hope of any explanation and have become logical positivists. * In other words they accept that their equations accurately predict results but explain nothing.

QM is not self-contradictory. The implications of QM are counterintiutive to the extreme, but not self-contradictory. You cannot use QM to come up with two disparate answers to the same physical question.

* Logical positism is famous for being self refuting. Logical positism's fundamental belief is that if a proposition is neither analytical or empirical it is gibberish.  Is the proposition " any proposition that is neither analytical or empirical is gibberish " analytical?   Nope! Is it empirical?  Nope! Therefore the central idea of logical positism is gibberish!
No. Using a system to analyze itself is in many ways improper. Otherwise, every system is 'self-defeating' and the entire intellectual edifice collapses. If you subscribe to logical positivism, you accept its axioms as true. "Any proposition that is neither analytical or empirical is gibberish," is not part of the set of positions that may be evaluated as gibberish — it's an axiom of the philosophy. You can evaluate that axiom on other grounds, but then you are not being a logical positivist.
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from Iosys' Neko Miko Reimu