What exists? (No seriously.)

Author: Math_Enthusiast

Posts

Total: 63
Math_Enthusiast
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 184
0
2
6
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Math_Enthusiast
0
2
6
A few questions to ponder and discuss:

  1.  Does the past exist?
  2. Does the future exist?
  3. Do abstractions exist?
  4. Do thoughts exist?
  5. If something will never be observed, does it exist?
  6. If you have heard that something has been observed, but never observe it yourself, does it exist?

Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 269
Posts: 7,594
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
  1.  Does the past exist?
Well, the definition of the past is something that used to exist, but no longer does. However, we can have memory of it, records and such. We usually base our future decisions on our past.

  1. Does the future exist?
Not yet. Maybe not at all. World can stop existing at any moment and we cannot know if future will actually exist.

  1. Do abstractions exist?
This is the question that I cannot really answer. Our world may be a product of someone's imagination. Therefore, our imagination could be a world of its own, a reality for our imagined characters. If our brain cells are alive and represent things we imagine, then what we imagine is a reality for our brain cells. Mind blowing.

  1. Do thoughts exist?
Probably. I dont see why wouldnt they exist.

  1. If something will never be observed, does it exist?
Well, the existence is irrelevant of observation. Observation is just evidence of existence, not cause of existence.

  1. If you have heard that something has been observed, but never observe it yourself, does it exist?
Maybe, but I dont like believing in things I cant observe myself. Sometimes I have to believe, but still, I prefer to be there to observe.
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 540
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
  1.  Does the past exist?
I don't know about this reality, but the A-theory of time is canon in 1984.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 564
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
Supply us the definition of 'exist' you wish us to employ in this thread.
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 167
Posts: 3,837
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
Why does it matter?
Math_Enthusiast
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 184
0
2
6
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Math_Enthusiast
0
2
6
-->
@RationalMadman
Supply us the definition of 'exist' you wish us to employ in this thread.
In the past, I have attempted to bring up the issue of a lack of meaningful definitions of "exist." The response to this was that the question was stupid and everyone knows what "exist" means. All arguments to the contrary were deemed irrelevant. So I'll be honest with you, this is a more subtle way to bring up the same topic, so you tell me, without using similar words such as "real," (unless you intend to define them separately) how would you define "exist?" Then we can work with that definition.
Math_Enthusiast
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 184
0
2
6
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Math_Enthusiast
0
2
6
-->
@Intelligence_06
Why does it matter?
Honestly, I don't have a good answer to this question. If you aren't interested, then you don't need to participate in this discussion.
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 167
Posts: 3,837
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
It is not that I am not interested. My view on this topic is that what truly exists is determined by you. Something exists to you just because you can sense it or can prove its existence(namely places that you have never gone before, etc). It does not matter any discussion on existence outside one's senses unless we are talking about ideas. Oh wait, ideas are still dependent on the minds of one.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,278
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
One can only work on assumptions relative to the self-contained.

Though if our assumptions are reasonable, I would suggest that existence is relative to the speed of time.

And the speed of time is seemingly........Infinitely fast......Making existence immeasurable.

Past and future are perhaps only self-contained mental exercises.
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,029
3
2
4
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
4
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
Yes
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,271
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
  1.  Does the past exist?
Yes within context of general relativity all is related.  I have evidence of my lunch in my stomach.

  1. Does the future exist?
Yes, similar as the above. >>>  Entropic arrow of time  >>
Cause and effect determinsim.  Food in stomach > intestines > butt-hole > exit

  1. Do abstractions exist?
Yes, ergo the Meta-space concepts youve presented on this page

  1. Do thoughts exist?
Yes, same as above

  1. If something will never be observed, does it exist?
We have indirect observatons of Gravity, Dark Energy, Dark Matter, Virtual Particles to name a few of the most obviouus ones.
Even with a photon, it is only quantised by the changes of electrons energy levels.

  1. If you have heard that something has been observed, but never observe it yourself, does it exist?
Yes, if it has bee observed then it exists. If it is hallucination then it exists as hallucination only.

Math_Enthusiast
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 184
0
2
6
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Math_Enthusiast
0
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
One can only work on assumptions relative to the self-contained.

Though if our assumptions are reasonable, I would suggest that existence is relative to the speed of time.

And the speed of time is seemingly........Infinitely fast......Making existence immeasurable.

Past and future are perhaps only self-contained mental exercises.

One could then ask what makes the present the present? We can't just say the present is what's happening right now, because "now" relies on the present. And if the present doesn't exist, and nor do the future or the past, what does?

Math_Enthusiast
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 184
0
2
6
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Math_Enthusiast
0
2
6
-->
@Intelligence_06
It is not that I am not interested. My view on this topic is that what truly exists is determined by you. Something exists to you just because you can sense it or can prove its existence(namely places that you have never gone before, etc). It does not matter any discussion on existence outside one's senses unless we are talking about ideas. Oh wait, ideas are still dependent on the minds of one.
So you are of the position that existence is subjective?
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 167
Posts: 3,837
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
So you are of the position that existence is subjective?
yees.

TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
If a tree breaks and falls in the forest, does it make a sound even though no one is around to hear it?

Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,029
3
2
4
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
4
If a tree breaks and falls in the forest, does it make a sound even though no one is around to hear it?
No, it only makes a vibration in the air, "sound" is an experiential quality, you need an ear and sentience to convert the vibration into the experience of sound.
b9_ntt
b9_ntt's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 276
0
2
5
b9_ntt's avatar
b9_ntt
0
2
5
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
  1.  Does the past exist? No.
  2. Does the future exist? No.
  3. Do abstractions exist? Only in the mind.
  4. Do thoughts exist? Only in the mind.
  5. If something will never be observed, does it exist? I don't know.
  6. If you have heard that something has been observed, but never observe it yourself, does it exist? Probably.


Math_Enthusiast
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 184
0
2
6
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Math_Enthusiast
0
2
6
-->
@Intelligence_06
yees
I would have to agree, considering that there aren't any generally accepted strong definitions of existence that I know of.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,278
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
Exactly.

Though I would suggest that the "present" as a remark is more of a general appreciation of recent events. 

I think that the word now, is a more appropriate descriptive of the ongoing moment.

But it takes far longer to utter the word "now" than the duration of the  moment  it attempts to capture lasts.


Nonetheless we can seemingly have a certain amount of confidence that we do exist in the present for a moment.

Memorable experiences would seem to confirm this.


Though it can easily be argued that experiences and memories are simulations of existence, rather than an actual appreciation or recollections of an externality.

But I digress.


And it just occurred to me:

That, even though the speed of time is immeasurably fast, we still manage to keep apace with it.

Relativity I suppose.
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
No, it only makes a vibration in the air, "sound" is an experiential quality, you need an ear and sentience to convert the vibration into the experience of sound.
Wrong. It does make a sound. Two different kinds, in fact. Sounds that can be heard and felt by the wildlife. The crack of the trunk breaking, and the thud of its weight slamming to the forest floor. If a trail cam is later reviewed the existence of that tree breaking and falling to the ground is realized as a past event with the sound of its breaking and hitting the forest floor heard and acknowledged by the one reviewing the footage. 

secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
I think the ground floor here is understanding that everything exists for me as an idea only. My brain is not an eye or an ear or a nose. It is not my skin. My brain only interprets signals second hand like a man in a submarine with no windows operating by instruments only.

I can only ever experience that which "exists" as an Idea. An interpretation based on purely mechanical instruments which can be imperfect at collecting the intended data which of course may be misinterpreted anyway.

What exists? I have to start with me and work out room there so here goes. I am real as the me who even wonders what I am at all. I think so... that thought is a thing that exists.
b9_ntt
b9_ntt's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 276
0
2
5
b9_ntt's avatar
b9_ntt
0
2
5
-->
@zedvictor4
That, even though the speed of time is immeasurably fast, we still manage to keep apace with it. Relativity I suppose.
It's not immeasurably fast. I think that according to the theory of relativity we are always moving at the speed of light in spacetime. Although we are moving through space at speeds that seem huge to us, they are far slower than light speed. So we are moving faster in time. That's why when you are moving faster in space, time slows down for you. Anyway, if we know how fast we are moving through space (earth, sun, galaxy), we could subtract that from the speed of light to get how fast we are moving in time.
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
In order to answer questions about what truly exists, we must first understand what the word exist means.

What does exist mean by definition:
According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, exist is a verb that means "to have real being whether material or spiritual", "to have being in a specified place or with respect to understood limitations or conditions", or "to continue to be".  The word exist comes from the Latin word existere, which means "to come into view, appear, show oneself, come into being". The first known use of exist was circa 1568.

Citation styles are different ways of formatting how you cite your sources in your academic writing. Different citation styles have different rules for how to present the author, date, title, and other information of a source. Some common citation styles are APA, MLA, Chicago, and Harvard. For example, here is how you would cite the Merriam-Webster Dictionary in these four styles:

APA: Merriam-Webster. (2023). Exist. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved July 30, 2023, from 2.
MLA: "Exist." Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, 2023. Accessed 30 July 2023, from 3.
Chicago: Merriam-Webster, s.v. "Exist," accessed July 30, 2023, from 4.
Harvard: Merriam-Webster (2023) Exist, Accessed: 30 July 2023, from 5.

From the above it is hard to say whether the past exists without further definition. Do you refer to exist in the present, or do you refer to exist throughout all time? It's possible you are even referring to what is real rather than what exists. Strategies, ideas, and abstract concepts do not physically exist, yet they are real and govern many of our decisions in our everyday lives. Perhaps the past and future do not exist currently but then perhaps they are real?

Can something be real but not exist:
There are different ways of understanding what it means for something to be real or to exist, and different fields of study may have different answers. Here are some possible perspectives:
What does real mean by definition:
The word real has several meanings and uses, depending on the context and the part of speech. Here are some definitions of real from different sources, along with citations:
The word real comes from the Latin word realis, which means “actual, real” or “relating to things rather than persons”. The first known use of the word was in the late Middle English period.

  1.  Does the past exist?
  2. Does the future exist?
  3. Do abstractions exist?
  4. Do thoughts exist?
  5. If something will never be observed, does it exist?
  6. If you have heard that something has been observed, but never observe it yourself, does it exist?
All of these questions revolve around an individual's perspective and interpretation of the concept of existence or reality. From my understanding, I consider both the future and the past to be real but not present in the current moment. I don't view the future and the present as a unified entity, but rather, they can appear interconnected when viewed from an objective standpoint, much like how a photon perceives time as it travels through space.

In my perspective, a thing can be true in one sense and also true in another, even if these truths seem contradictory. For example, I believe that the future is predetermined, yet I also hold that humans should be held responsible for their actions. This might seem complex, but I have carefully considered and thought through this idea. It's as if truths can vary depending on the user's standpoint, whether it's a philosophical, physical, subjective, objective, or any other perspective.

I don't think that one truth is superior to others, nor do I believe in an ultimate truth. Instead, I believe that the truth to be employed should be chosen based on its practicality and the answer it seeks to produce. To illustrate, both light meters and teaspoons are legitimate tools for uncovering truths, but using a light meter to measure a teaspoon or vice versa would be inappropriate because each has its intended purpose based on the situation. They are different perspectives, but they remain legitimate truths.

Similarly, when considering subjective or objective perspectives, I believe they can coexist as truths, even if they appear to contradict each other. For instance, it can be 100 degrees outside subjectively while objectively being only 80 degrees. Depending on the context and the desired result, each perspective serves its purpose, and all can be considered simultaneous truths.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,278
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@b9_ntt
So when is now?

b9_ntt
b9_ntt's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 276
0
2
5
b9_ntt's avatar
b9_ntt
0
2
5
-->
@zedvictor4
Now is the present moment, but it is always local: what is now for me is not now for someone on Alpha Centauri.
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,122
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@zedvictor4
@b9_ntt
Actually, now for you is the same as for someone on Alpha Centuri. Occurring, “at the same time” means concurrently and there is no reason why separate events at any distance could not happen concurrently. We might not be able to prove that they were concurrent but nothing in physical reality causes all events to be non-concurrent. We know there is more than one star in the universe.
(More than trillions) We know that some stars (trillions) emit photons at the same time other stars are emitting photons. That necessarily implies that events happening on the far side of the universe or in a different Galaxy are occurring "at the same time " (concurrently).
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@FLRW
It's also important to consider that time moves at different speeds throughout the universe at different gravitational variations. Some stars may have exploded a million years ago while their photons continued to shine on the Earth and we perceive that it still exists. In the same way, we see the remnants of the past all around us in the present without directly experiencing the past in the present.
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
From different perspectives, we can see that the past and future both exist in a theoretical and practical sense. However, from a solipsistic or philosophical standpoint, one might believe they do not exist. Similarly, aspects of truth can be measured like teaspoons or lumens, and both are valid at the same time, yet they produce different results. Similarly, we can say that the future and past do not exist and they do exist, and both views are valid together. Still, for practical reasons, we may choose one perspective over the other, just as we would use a teaspoon for baking and lumens for lighting, one is not more valid, yet each has its purpose.

zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,278
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@b9_ntt
Yep.

But in that sense time is just available potential.



But when is your now?

Now has no perceivable duration.

You cannot pin down any moment of an event.

All that you can do is generalise and refer to the whole event as now. 

And by the time you've done that, the event is history.

And the beginning of the event was history the moment it started.

Though the moment is only a generalisation because it is immeasurable.


Whereas light has a measurable duration.


Time is immeasurably faster than light.
b9_ntt
b9_ntt's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 276
0
2
5
b9_ntt's avatar
b9_ntt
0
2
5
-->
@zedvictor4
I think that, using your statements, that the word now is meaningless.