See not, is not.

[27x]

Things do not truely exist, without there being lifeforms present to be concous of them. I will have trouble writing this if I only use the word existence, becasue there are not enough versions and definitions for those versions of the word existence.

Existence A=true existence
Existence B=If a tree falls in the woods, and noone is there, it still exists, in that the piramaters of its location and so on are still valid. In this way, the tree doesn't truely exist, but the information for its existence is still valid, so someone wouldn't go to that spot and find that there was no tree, but wrather the new lifestyle of the tree would not only exist now, but untill that being was no longer alive to recall the tree.


Things in existence B, will always exist as existence A, if a being comes to store the object in it's memory. However, objects existing as B, can still change, and they will still be just as true as the recollection of a past object. A man who has grown old, can remember a small tree, and that memory will be just as valid as the current truth, even if he is not thinking about it that very moment.  

[Niniva]

What you are speaking of is much like Plato's cave. But your thinking is flawed. Surely there is no one in the world who quite literally thinks that if they were to simply turn around and plug their ears the things behind them would cease to exist in a litteral sense. That is obsurd.

So you must then be refering to the epistemic "existence" in the sense that if I can't percieve it then it doesn't 'exist to me'.

As a Metaphysician myself I fail to see a problem with existance as a whole as I am not one who particularly cares at all if there is a thing there to percieve something else's existance. There are things which truely metaphysically exist around us all the time which are quite impossible to percieve and yet they are there doing their metaphysical as always.

What you have suggested seems not at all a problem if you consider the world to be objective. Existance doesn't depend at all on an observer and so to say something stops existing when there is no thing there to percieve it is much like saying existance itself, in a literal sense, depends wholely on the senses. If that is true then not only are there things that are metaphysically there that we cannot percieve (atoms, electrons, photons, Quarks...ect) but there are many things that 'exist' because you percieve them even though they aren't literally there.

The senses can be decieved quite easily (May I cite the mirrage arguement here), but those things are not truely there are they? Not metaphysically they aren't. You may think they are but what you think about the way the world is has no real bearing on the actual way the world is. To think so is obsurd.  

[27x]

I truely hate the notion,"Sences can be decieved," because that implies that what we think is the norm, and devoid of deception, could actually be a matrix of lies. It's like a wild card, that everyone keeps playing, although I can't deny it's credebility.

The crux of what I am saying is that if there are no living things to percieve this beautifull universe, then it might as well not exist, and in a sence(pardon my punn) it won't.

For example, the only colors we can see on the color spectrum are ROYG BIV. The other colors do not exist, because we can not see them. They exist in existence B, however they are a truely useless thing.

One of the ideas I always toyed with is that empty space has a color, but we only percieve it as black. People tell me,"Well nothing is black." Firstly I'd counter with the idea that, we percieve nothing as black, because our eyes percieve it, not because it is true. Secondly, there could be things in space that we can not see, similarly to how a bee can not see the color white.

Although I can't deny that these colours exist, they also do not exist.

My Final arguement:
1.There arn't enough words in the english language for exist.
2.Nothing can turely exist without something else to be concous of it.  

[whynaut]

I must agree with I_27 on most of his counts. He brings up a point about existence versus effective existence. Now if, as Niniva says, things objectively exist than they exist without an observer. I personally think that existence and effective existence are the same thing.

I can ask, "what color is that apple?" and you could tell me "it is red", but is it red? Color is not intrinsic to an object; color is merely the light that reflects off an object and travels to our eye. In that case, the apple is really black (or existing in a state without color). Or is the fact that an apple is effectively red make it red? Likewise, if color is defined as "the light that reflects in our eye" than color does not exist to a blind man because the light never reflects to his eye. The argument against this is that color does exists, but that it does not effectively exist for the blind man. My retort to that, is asking how one gauges existence?

If the senses can be fooled, than how does one know that there is something fooling them? Is there an extra sense, perhaps a spiritual sense, that cannot be fooled and that is how you know there is existence outside your senses? Or is the belief in a world outside of the senses based on faith that "there's gotta be something"?

I also found it interesting that Niniva brought up the fact that (atoms, electrons, photons, Quarks...ect) exist even if we cannot see them, when actually quantum physicists agree that they do not. Take, for instance, the double slit experiment. When photons are closely observed with a machine traveling through the double slit, they act like particles and the light can be seen as two bands at the other side. But, do not examine the photons closely under normal conditions, and instead the light on the other side has a disruption pattern, unlike a particle, but like a wave. This wave is actually a wave of probability. The photon particle actually exists in potentia in multiple areas at once. The densest part of the wave is where the photon exists in highest probability and the shallower parts are where there is a lesser probability. It is only when observed closely with a machine that this wave function collapses and the photon actualizes into only one specific area [read Brian Greene's Elegant Universe for source]. So couldn't we say that when a tree falls in the forest and no ones around to hear it, it exists in a potential state of both fallen and not fallen until we have an outside observer to allow the wave function to collapse and it becomes one or the other?

(Once upon a time I thought science would have finally give me the exact answers to life. Imagine my surprise when I got to quantum/particle physics) rolleyes  

[27x]

We have a few problembs:
1.Trickery of the sences.
2.Athiesm and nihilism.
3.Lack of understanding of the word existence, and the fact that it is very opinionated.
4.Misunderstanding of the difference between existence, and essential existence, or the lack there of.
5.Basic differences in opinion.

This being said, can we really assume to know what existence means? Who are we to say what is or what is not? Even a nihilist seems to react to the things in their life as if they where actually happening. They go to work, and eat, and rest. Even though I can try to understand what it means to exist, I will still perceive things untill I die. Therefore, existence is what I am able to percieve.  

[dybo]

I've got your word: enjoy.

It implies that the object exists, and adds to that existance the idea of perception and appreciation. What is the point of the existance of something if said something cannot be enjoyed?

There is existance beyond our senses: on both the microscopic and macroscopic planes, there are objects that we cannot sense that exist. But that is existance in the scientific sense: the object has matter or energy, it can be measured, it exists.  

[whynaut]

dybo

There is existence beyond our senses: on both the microscopic and macroscopic planes, there are objects that we cannot sense that exist. But that is existence in the scientific sense: the object has matter or energy, it can be measured, it exists.

Allow me to pose a simple question. How do you know, personally, that these things exist outside your senses? Microscopic things, for example, you can see under a microscope so that is still within your sense of sight. As for everything else that is outside your senses, what makes you so sure that these things exist? Words on a page? Trust in other people's senses? Faith?  

[27x]

I completely disagree that particles in the attoms can't be seen. They are just to small for us to see now.

Another example is electons. Even if we could see closely enough to observe them, they would be moving too fast for us to see. They would just look like a transparent shell surrounding the protons and neutrons.

Also, they are to scale, so impossibly far away from eachother, that you probably couldn't see the electrons and the nucleus of an atom in the same image.  

[dybo]

You're sort of missing the point of my post, but I'll answer your random nitpicks anyways.

Most recent first: They are to small for us to see NOW. All we can do is hypothesize about their nature, and run tests that give us an imperfect view of them. Plus, there's always something smaller: molecules > atoms > protons/neutrons/electrons > quarks > etc. ad infinatum.

Next up: how can we know anything is true? Have you personally examined the human genetic code to find that it is 97(ish)% banana? So I suppose "faith" is the answer to your question, as in "I have faith that dozens of scientists from multiple countries finding the same thing aren't just lying to us for their own amusement." I assume that atoms exist because people with better equiptment than I say so. I assume that huge expanses of solar dust that look like mutated cotton candy exist because people with better equiptment than I say so. You can be skeptical about everything, and check what you can, but when looking at objects 18 billion light-years away, you need the Hubble Telescope, which I cannot afford.

In case you haven't noticed, that type of question offends me because it asks an inherently unanswerable question that neither of us could make any headway on, is pointless, avoids answering any questions I asked/commenting on anything I said in favor of question the nature of truth, and involves me adding pointless characters onto the end of my post to explain why said question detracts from said thread.  

[shall she sail seas]

To undermind all this: how can we prove that the tools we've made - and will make - are actually conducive towards allowing us accurately see the world as it is? To go a bit further, even if there is some sort of universality to what those tools portray, can we ever truly tell that they are portraying something wrong because humans have some unknown universal flaw in our perceptions?

Despite this, I have to agree with you, dybo, that we should enjoy the things around us. However, I'm not too sure that the existence of things are merely because they should be enjoyed by us.  

[whynaut]

In regards to the science, I am really wondering why you guys are stuck in the mind set of a classical Einsteinian universe where everything is distinct and can be calculated exactly? Quantum physics has been around so long that it has actually gotten old, and it dictates that at incredibly microscopic scales (past atomic) things are not intrinsically true, but probabilistically true. I used the example of the old double slit experiment to show a real-life instance where one can physically see not a classical '1-photon thru 1-Slit', but 1-probabilistic photon that exists in potentia at multiple locations that can pass through 2-Slits at the same time. I brought this up because when you observe a photon it "freezes" and exists in only 1 state and 1 location.

In terms of philosophy, this means that there are properties of our universe that only become "real" when observed (or otherwise perceived through the senses). So, we cannot necessarily say that all things exactly exist even though we can't see them. At best, we can only say that things probably exist when we can't see them.

Don't believe me?
Here's the source.
and the last paragraph under the "Copenhagen interpretation" here.

sweatdrop *whew* Haven't used my old science muscles in a while. Good to know they have not completely atrophied.  

[whynaut]

dybo

In case you haven't noticed, that type of question offends me because it asks an inherently unanswerable question that neither of us could make any headway on, is pointless, avoids answering any questions I asked/commenting on anything I said in favor of question the nature of truth, and involves me adding pointless characters onto the end of my post to explain why said question detracts from said thread.

I am really am sorry about that one (and no, this is not a back handed apology). I appreciate the fact that people can experience the universe through... well... experiences. Enjoying things does certainly make the universe feel more real.

My point was simply that if you cannot prove something is real, then how could one make the claim that it is?  

[Amenubis]

When I become vexed by questions such as these, I tend to believe that we exist as a form of Idealism.

I believe we exist much like a net in a vast ocean. Our ability to sufficiently quantify observations around us is limited to our abilities as a net. To suggest that one day we will be able to understand existence as "formula" is foolish. Like a net, there will always be objects that slip through, for whatever reason, be it that our meshing isn't dense enough, or we have a hole, whatever. The point is that our understanding will always be limited to our abilities as a human.

To clarify, I also believe that our "abilities" as a net will never be fully known, so I don't believe we could ever become "aware" of our completedness AS a net, and understand that we are "missing" things. We were not meant to percieve every little universal speck that enters into our line of sight. Enjoying life requires a bit of ignorance on the part of the observer, so one who attempts to "know" everything will surely be miserable.  

[dybo]

NomNomNominal

Despite this, I have to agree with you, dybo, that we should enjoy the things around us. However, I'm not too sure that the existence of things are merely because they should be enjoyed by us.

Not what I meant. Existance wasn't made for us. What I was getting at was there are more ways of saying "exist" than using that word: for instance, enjoy implies exist. Enjoyment just means we are taking literal physical existance and placing it under observation. Heck, "observation" would work for a word as well.

@whynaut: that's what I meant. We cannot prove something real based on our experience alone. We don't have access to some of the newer gadgets used to observe reality, so we have to rely on the words of others. Eventually, you have to trust someone, because it is very hard to confirm everything yourself. Basically, I cannot say 100% that I'm sure atoms exist, I just have to believe what others say about them.  

[27x]

My Biology teacher has something called the Black Box project. He brought out a black wooden box with a funnel on top, and a little whole in the bottom. He would pour a certian ammount of clear water into the box, and the water that came out of the hole in the bottom was a different colour. Every once in a while it would be a different colour than the first one, alternating between four colours. At the end of it, he says," Hmm, I wonder if turning this funnel to the left or right will change the colour, " It was an obvious clue to help us figure out how the box worked.

The assignment was we had to figure out, not how the box worked directly, but to figure out a plausable means for the box to do what it was doing. If our idea didn't work, or it had some unexplained idea, "Well there are different chambers, and they all go down this tube(he would have us draw our idea) and a different color comes out every time.How would the box decide what color would come out. What stops the colors from all mixing together?I didn't figure that out." then we would get only half of the points for the assignment. If our idea actually would work, and all the factors could be proven, then we would get all but ten points(I'll explain the ten point difference soon).


I was the only one who got the forty points(the maximum was fifty, but as I said, the ten points thing)with my idea, "The funnel has a little plastic shute attatched to it. On each side of the wall, is a marker of a different color. Whenever somone turns the funnel to one side of the box, the shute pours the water ontop of the marker, which will give it a distinct color."

This was not only plausable, but from his reaction, I am sure that I was dead on.

What he said next surprised me though, "When people can't observe something the way they need to to unerstand it, they can only make theories, and a theory is only good untill somone comes up with a better one. It's easy for us to say that an atom exists with protons, neutrons, and electrons, but once someone observes an atom directly, or comes up with a better theory, we'll have to accept that. We can't just believe in one theory forever, because without being able to observe it, we may be wrong."

It's easy to cower behind all the PhDs who are sure as hell that the atomic theory is correct, and noone will ever disprove it, and if somone does you can be sure as hell that the majority of people will reject it for no good reason at all. All I can say is, don't believe everything that you don't see, hear, feel, touch, smell, or taste.