SirJamesIII Posted July 8, 2013 Posted July 8, 2013 Likewise, a process exists because one can meausure and detect them as well. Processes must exist because if they didn't, then epiphenomena wouldn't exist, and epiphenonmena do exist as objects. If the process of "fusion" didn't exist, then there would be no helium created from hydrogen atoms. Helium is the epiphomenon resulting from the process of fusion. Your example of fusion could be explained in another way: Suppose that we have two hydrogen atoms. They have location and shape. Moments later, we now only have one helium atom. The previous two hydrogen atoms no longer have shape or location. The new helium atom also has location and shape. Did some kind of transformation occur? Yes. Does that transformation itself have location and/or shape? No. Is that transformation detectable? Only vicariously as a consequence of comparing the current state of a system of objects to the previous state of a system of objects. A consequence of having location and shape is that the entity is also detectable. Detectability requires location and shape, but introduces a dependence on an observer for existence. That dependence is unnecessary in order to explain existence. Detectability does not require an observer, but a potential observer. If I am to take what you say literally, then something that isn't being observed doesn't exist, but that is not what I'm trying to say. You essentially commit to the same mistake as the OP when using the telescope reference. If all conscious beings died out, that doesn't mean that nothing exists any longer, that just means that there is no knowledge of any existence. In order for the concept of existence to exist itself, it requires a conscious being to exist in order to think it up. Since I am talking to you on the internet, we know it is possible for something conscious to exist, and therefore we know it is possible to detect something. To be more speciffic, detectability requires a potential sensory insturment. Quantum mechanics tells us that the smallest components of the universe are sensory insturments themselves as demonstrated in the double slit experiment.
SirJamesIII Posted July 8, 2013 Posted July 8, 2013 "Gravity" is a unidirectional relationship between two or more objects that operates at a distance, causing the objects to be drawn to each other. As I have already stated earlier, gravity does not refer to a relationship between two objects, but rather how a single object warps spacetime. Spacetime is not an "object" and since you admit that tranformations happen, then you must admit time exists because a single object can't be two different objects at the same time. Light has no mass, yet it is still sucked into black holes, so you must admit that spacetime exists as the only explanation for light getting sucked into black holes is that the curvature of space changes such that light travels through an event horizon where it does not come back out again.
Victor Posted July 8, 2013 Posted July 8, 2013 Quantum mechanics tells us that the smallest components of the universe are sensory insturments themselves as demonstrated in the double slit experiment. I'd love for you to expand on this or point me where I can get more info on this. Thanks.
KyleG Posted July 8, 2013 Posted July 8, 2013 "Gravity" is a unidirectional relationship between two or more objects that operates at a distance, causing the objects to be drawn to each other. As I have already stated earlier, gravity does not refer to a relationship between two objects, but rather how a single object warps spacetime. Spacetime is not an "object" and since you admit that tranformations happen, then you must admit time exists because a single object can't be two different objects at the same time. Light has no mass, yet it is still sucked into black holes, so you must admit that spacetime exists as the only explanation for light getting sucked into black holes is that the curvature of space changes such that light travels through an event horizon where it does not come back out again. There's a lot of terms/phrases used in this response that I don't think have been necessarily defined in this thread. I can't just assume we both are on the same page without first addressing them: Spacetime Time Sucked Black holes "curvature of space" You said that gravity refers to how "a single object warps spacetime." How do we know this? I acknowledge that an object can undergo a transformation. "Time" is the perception of that change. Change occurs, it does not exist. Even in the standard physical model, is it really accurate to say that "light" is "sucked into" a "black hole" ? I think if my description of light v gravity is accurate, what prevents the two "fields" from influencing and altering each other? How do we know about the curvature of space?
KyleG Posted July 8, 2013 Posted July 8, 2013 Detectability does not require an observer, but a potential observer. If I am to take what you say literally, then something that isn't being observed doesn't exist, but that is not what I'm trying to say. You essentially commit to the same mistake as the OP when using the telescope reference. If all conscious beings died out, that doesn't mean that nothing exists any longer, that just means that there is no knowledge of any existence. What does detectability require? "If I am to take what you say literally, then something that isn't being observed doesn't exist" What part of what I said implies that something being observed doesn't exist? The definition of exist I am working with assumes only shape and location, not the potential for observation, even though I believe shape and location necessitate that potential. In order for the concept of existence to exist itself, it requires a conscious being to exist in order to think it up. Since I am talking to you on the internet, we know it is possible for something conscious to exist, and therefore we know it is possible to detect something. Concepts don't exist regardless of the existence of beings capable of abstract thought. Concepts are either valid (logically consistent) or invalid. The absence of such beings doesn't invalidate or validate any concepts, it does mean those concepts are not being imagined and tested for validity. To be more speciffic, detectability requires a potential sensory insturment. Quantum mechanics tells us that the smallest components of the universe are sensory insturments themselves as demonstrated in the double slit experiment. The double slit experiment has unquestionably fascinating results. I am definitely be interested in learning more about what a sensory instrument is.
SirJamesIII Posted July 8, 2013 Posted July 8, 2013 What does detectability require? "If I am to take what you say literally, then something that isn't being observed doesn't exist" What part of what I said implies that something being observed doesn't exist? The definition of exist I am working with assumes only shape and location, not the potential for observation, even though I believe shape and location necessitate that potential. Concepts don't exist regardless of the existence of beings capable of abstract thought. Concepts are either valid (logically consistent) or invalid. The absence of such beings doesn't invalidate or validate any concepts, it does mean those concepts are not being imagined and tested for validity. The double slit experiment has unquestionably fascinating results. I am definitely be interested in learning more about what a sensory instrument is. I may have misunderstood, but I thought you were taking on the definition of existence requiring detectability and critiquing it, and I thought you strawmanned it when you said detectability requires an observer. What I'm trying to say is that anything that has shape and location can be observed and that means the object exists. If the phenomenon can't be detected then it must not have shape and location (or we can't infer its shape and location in cases of energy). Existence still requires detectibility as a criterion. Also a self-aware universe would transcend the observer-observed dichotomy anyways. Anything that can be observed is also an observer. Self-awareness means that someting can detect itself. Perhaps the universe can detect itself too. I guess a sensory insturment is just something that can recieve information from sensory inputs. And I do mean non-physical information, and not an interaction between physical objects. They're my own words. Perhaps a sensory instrument is just something that is aware. In the double slit experiment, we must conclude that subatomic particles have these qualites since they exist as waves of probability until they are observed resulting in the collapse of a wave function creating a physically observable particle. Perhaps this is an even more concrete reason for believing that detectability or observability must be integral to our understanding of existence. QM is the notion that on the deepest level objects are possibilities until they are observed. An even better illustration of this would be the quantum entanglement experiment and "spooky action at a distance." The "only objects exist" explanation couldn't possibly describe the phenomenon of non-locality as physical objects cannot exceed the speed of light. In quantum entanglement experiments information is exchanged instantanously and the entangled particles stay polarized with one another a hundred percent of the time. So somehow, the particles know each other's physcial state. If information doesn't exist, then non-locality would be impossible, but bell's theorem demonstrates that no physical theory can predict the outcomes quantum experiments. Does non-locality imply that something can exist and not have location? I don't know. Perhaps this flies in the face of Stef's assertion that concepts only exist internally, but I like to think that maybe the whole universe itself has an internal world. You are correct in that concepts are either logically consistent or not and that their consistency does not depend on the existence of something conscious. But formalized thought still requires a thinker. Euclidean geometry was valid before Euclid, but euclidean geometry was not known before Euclid. If there are no thinkers present in the universe, then there would be no way to validate whether or not your definition of existence is true. Your definition of existence may still be consistent, but that's not what we're trying to achieve. I can contrive a formal system that is logically consistent, but if the axioms and the theorems they produce are not isomorphic to reality, then it is still a useless formal system despite being a valid one. Truth is not analogous to what is logically evident. Truth has to conform to reality, not just to axioms and one still needs a concious entity to verify this truth. It is improper to call Euclidean geometry a completely true system of formal thought. The parallel postulate rests upon assumptions that are not provable. Euclidean geometry assumes definitions of lines, points and circles not because they appeal to reality (or at least not completely), but because they appeal to the intuition. There are no infinitely small points or infinitely long lines in the universe. No system of formal thought can completely describe the universe unless supplemented by some other system. This is a deep philisophical reason why one needs some self-aware observer to verify the truth. Perhaps the most concrete explanation of this would be Godel's incompleteness theorem, which demonstrates that there are true statements within number theory that are not theorems. Godel's string, G, essentially says, "I am not a theorem." It can't be a theorem because that would be contradictory, but since it declares that itself is not a theorem, then it must be true. Godel employed the tool of self-reference to create a truth that is not provable within the system. I won't go into explaining why, but even if you make G an axiom, that system will likewise be Godelized and incomplete. IMO the only way one can arrive at a complete view of the universe is if conciousness is included into the equation.
fingolfin Posted July 9, 2013 Posted July 9, 2013 What does detectability require? "If I am to take what you say literally, then something that isn't being observed doesn't exist" What part of what I said implies that something being observed doesn't exist? The definition of exist I am working with assumes only shape and location, not the potential for observation, even though I believe shape and location necessitate that potential. Concepts don't exist regardless of the existence of beings capable of abstract thought. Concepts are either valid (logically consistent) or invalid. The absence of such beings doesn't invalidate or validate any concepts, it does mean those concepts are not being imagined and tested for validity. The double slit experiment has unquestionably fascinating results. I am definitely be interested in learning more about what a sensory instrument is. I may have misunderstood, but I thought you were taking on the definition of existence requiring detectability and critiquing it, and I thought you strawmanned it when you said detectability requires an observer. What I'm trying to say is that anything that has shape and location can be observed and that means the object exists. If the phenomenon can't be detected then it must not have shape and location (or we can't infer its shape and location in cases of energy). Existence still requires detectibility as a criterion. Also a self-aware universe would transcend the observer-observed dichotomy anyways. Anything that can be observed is also an observer. Self-awareness means that someting can detect itself. Perhaps the universe can detect itself too. No, this would be a contradiction. The observing of it doesn't "mean" it exists. Otherwise we're saying that the Earth did not exist until we came along and observed it. We can critically reason (i.e. be obejctive) about this, and conclude that before we observed/measured/detected it, the Earth existed. Why? Because it has architecture (shape) and location wrt other objects. Likewise, just because we cannt detect it, that doesn't mean it has no shape or location. This is why science requires a rational hypothesis (i.e. hypothesized object or physical mechanism). For example, nobody can observe an atom directly – let alone a tiny photon or neutron! – and in fact all our instrumentation at best reconstructs a mess of various data (just look at the LHC images for example!). We must hypothesize an atom. We give it a shape so we're all on the same page. Which of the 7+ versions of the atom shall we draw for our audience? The debunked Rutherford/Bohr version aka the planetary model?! Choices choices! This is why physics demands a physical object: that with shape. It's a strictly conceptual issue. We're not going out hunting for an atom under a rock here. We're not trying to "prove" or "disprove" a black hole, leprechaun or the UFO (poltiics, law). We're trying to conceptualise (ultimately: visualize) what "it" IS, literally speaking (science). Not in poetry or metaphor or math either. All physical objects can and must be illustrated in order to have a rational discourse. [Ask the guy who fixes your car next time if he has a zero-dimensional carburetor. Or, if he can swap out the fuel (object) in your car for some (ideally, dark) "energy" or just get it started using some magical "forces"!] Point being: science requires a hypothesis. The hypothesis requires all exhibits (aka "evidence") be presented for scrutiny before the theory begins. We may never SEE or DETECT the Yeti, but as long as we can hypothesize our Kodiak Bear on the big screen, the audience can grasp the creature that left the big-foot-prints.
fingolfin Posted July 9, 2013 Posted July 9, 2013 And just to add, the tactical word Universe objectively resolves to a concept. A concept that binds (1) matter (sum total of all obejcts) and (2) space. So it's relational. Concept: that without shape; aka a relation b/t objects. So, "a" universe cannot be aware, and does not do any measuring. We cannot ever say "the" universe is aware, any more than we can say "it" had a beginning. In fact, it's not really a very scientific word outside of studying the large-scale structure of matter itself, i.e. "as a whole".
PatrickC Posted July 9, 2013 Posted July 9, 2013 Hey KyleG, many thanks, I think your interpretations on this topic has been the most helpful ones thus far (at least for me). No offence to the OP or others who have attempted to clear it up. I was curious though, because I'm still processing these ideas, what are the implications for some of the thinking here at FDR or for Stefs thinking even.
KyleG Posted July 9, 2013 Posted July 9, 2013 Hey KyleG, many thanks, I think your interpretations on this topic has been the most helpful ones thus far (at least for me). No offence to the OP or others who have attempted to clear it up. I was curious though, because I'm still processing these ideas, what are the implications for some of the thinking here at FDR or for Stefs thinking even. I finally had the opportunity to listen to . Unfortunately, the discussion went on a tangent and never returned to the original contradiction that huttnedu was attempting to resolve.The contradiction that remains is the following. "existence" is defined as "objectively detectable." Sound is "objectively detectable." Sound exists. "Motion" is a relationship between an object and itself in a new location. Motion is a concept. Sound is a particular type of motion. Sound is a concept. Concepts do not exist. Sound does not exist. Therefore, sound both exists and does not exist. The definition of "existence" put forth by this thread (that which has shape and location) resolves this contradiction.
TheRobin Posted July 9, 2013 Posted July 9, 2013 whenever someone starts to say, "but x is a concept" that's usually both true and irrelevant. Every word we use is a concept (so that can be literally said about everything we say). It's just a weird red herring basically, one might as well say, "but object is a noun and nouns don't exist"...and since we can detect a change in location (how else would we know about it?), that doesn't even clash with the definition that's being put forth at 1.Therefore I go again with the "why do we need to change the defintiion, when we already have accurate ones?"
PatrickC Posted July 9, 2013 Posted July 9, 2013 I finally had the opportunity to listen to . Unfortunately, the discussion went on a tangent and never returned to the original contradiction that huttnedu was attempting to resolve.The contradiction that remains is the following. "existence" is defined as "objectively detectable." Sound is "objectively detectable." Sound exists. "Motion" is a relationship between an object and itself in a new location. Motion is a concept. Sound is a particular type of motion. Sound is a concept. Concepts do not exist. Sound does not exist. Therefore, sound both exists and does not exist. The definition of "existence" put forth by this thread (that which has shape and location) resolves this contradiction. Sorry Kyle, but none of that made sense regarding my earlier question.
KyleG Posted July 9, 2013 Posted July 9, 2013 what are the implications for some of the thinking here at FDR or for Stefs thinking even. Sorry, I should have added: I don't know what the implications are until there is a resolution to this contradiction.
SirJamesIII Posted July 9, 2013 Posted July 9, 2013 No, this would be a contradiction. The observing of it doesn't "mean" it exists. Otherwise we're saying that the Earth did not exist until we came along and observed it. We can critically reason (i.e. be obejctive) about this, and conclude that before we observed/measured/detected it, the Earth existed. Why? Because it has architecture (shape) and location wrt other objects. Likewise, just because we cannt detect it, that doesn't mean it has no shape or location. This is why science requires a rational hypothesis (i.e. hypothesized object or physical mechanism). For example, nobody can observe an atom directly – let alone a tiny photon or neutron! – and in fact all our instrumentation at best reconstructs a mess of various data (just look at the LHC images for example!). We must hypothesize an atom. We give it a shape so we're all on the same page. Which of the 7+ versions of the atom shall we draw for our audience? The debunked Rutherford/Bohr version aka the planetary model?! Choices choices! This is why physics demands a physical object: that with shape. It's a strictly conceptual issue. We're not going out hunting for an atom under a rock here. We're not trying to "prove" or "disprove" a black hole, leprechaun or the UFO (poltiics, law). We're trying to conceptualise (ultimately: visualize) what "it" IS, literally speaking (science). Not in poetry or metaphor or math either. All physical objects can and must be illustrated in order to have a rational discourse. [Ask the guy who fixes your car next time if he has a zero-dimensional carburetor. Or, if he can swap out the fuel (object) in your car for some (ideally, dark) "energy" or just get it started using some magical "forces"!] Point being: science requires a hypothesis. The hypothesis requires all exhibits (aka "evidence") be presented for scrutiny before the theory begins. We may never SEE or DETECT the Yeti, but as long as we can hypothesize our Kodiak Bear on the big screen, the audience can grasp the creature that left the big-foot-prints. I've said this several times already; I'm not saying that the things that aren't being observed don't exist, but anything that can be observed exists. If the phenomenon can't be detected then it cannot exist.
PatrickC Posted July 10, 2013 Posted July 10, 2013 what are the implications for some of the thinking here at FDR or for Stefs thinking even. Sorry, I should have added: I don't know what the implications are until there is a resolution to this contradiction. Ok, that's fair enough, nor do I [] I think it generally makes a lot of sense to me, at least for now, but I am curious about the wider debate.
fingolfin Posted July 10, 2013 Posted July 10, 2013 I've said this several times already; I'm not saying that the things that aren't being observed don't exist, but anything that can be observed exists. If the phenomenon can't be detected then it cannot exist. Same problem though. Things cannot "pop into" existence upon detection (magic). If I discover a rock, it sure better exist before I trip over it. It's irrelevant if later on, we say "Oh, but the rock in retrospect was detectable! Therefore detectability is the new criterion.". Many people claim to have observed god's will, and detected zero-dimensional (shapeless) particles. What do these "things" look like (hypothetically)? No idea! But they're proven and true all the same, according to the believers. We cannot understand, so we have to accept in good faith. I say no! Show me the money!
Victor Posted July 10, 2013 Posted July 10, 2013 I've been proposing the definition: to exist is to be composed of matter and/or energy and interact with matter and/or energy. Detectability is a problematic concept. Does it mean that we can detected or that at some point we will be able to detected or that it's supposed that someone in some way could detect it? If instead we say that X exists because it interacts with Y matter and/or Z energy, then we just need to look for evidence of such interaction.
SirJamesIII Posted July 10, 2013 Posted July 10, 2013 I've said this several times already; I'm not saying that the things that aren't being observed don't exist, but anything that can be observed exists. If the phenomenon can't be detected then it cannot exist. Same problem though. Things cannot "pop into" existence upon detection (magic). If I discover a rock, it sure better exist before I trip over it. It's irrelevant if later on, we say "Oh, but the rock in retrospect was detectable! Therefore detectability is the new criterion.". Many people claim to have observed god's will, and detected zero-dimensional (shapeless) particles. What do these "things" look like (hypothetically)? No idea! But they're proven and true all the same, according to the believers. We cannot understand, so we have to accept in good faith. I say no! Show me the money! The rock's detectability is not dependent on the fact that someone has to be there to discover it. The rock was detectable before the person discovered it. The rock did not become magically detectable once the person discovered it. Detectability is not an ex post facto rule. If a photon can interact with something, then that thing is detectable and therefore exists or if the effects of the phenonmenon can be observed through the behavior of other objects', which are detectable because likewise photons can interact with objects, then that phenomenon exists as well. This also doesn't mean that anywhere that photons don't exist, then the objects in this place don't exist. Because of the laws of physics, we know that photons can interact with objects, and the laws of physics are valid regardless if an observer is there to think them up. The act of detection does not make something exist, but rather, if the thing can possibly be detected then it exists. If some universe is full of objects that are detectable, but there exists no observers, that does mean that these objects aren't detectable, that just means that no one knows that the objects are detectable. The definition does not require that anyone know that phenomena is detectable. You seem to be imposing memory into the definition. The definition does not require the existence of an observer. It just requires that if an observer is there, then the observer has to be able to detect it.
huttnedu Posted July 12, 2013 Author Posted July 12, 2013 " if the thing can possibly be detected then it exists." " It just requires that if an observer is there, then the observer has to be able to detect it [in order for the thing to exist] " Be detected by WHOM? See, you are attempting to idealize the notion of "detectability" into an objective standard. However, detection is necessarily by definition an observer-dependent concept. There is NO objective standard for detectability. Detectable is always relative to an observer. Objectively detectable is a contradiction. " if the thing can possibly be detected then it exists. "Before the telescope it was IMPOSSIBLE for anybody to see extremely distant stars, and even with our very best means of detection, there are still objects in the universe that can never possibly be detected by us either because they are too small or too far away or whatever. Do those objects not exist?
huttnedu Posted July 12, 2013 Author Posted July 12, 2013 I've been proposing the definition: to exist is to be composed of matter and/or energy This boils down to exist = matter/energy. What have we learned? This does not resolve the meaning of exist but rather appears to provide two synonyms. What is matter? What is energy? These are not basic concepts but crucial terms that make or break your definition. and interact with matter and/or energy. If something needs to interact with other existent entities in order to exist, then you are using the word exist to define the word exist, a circular definition. "Something exists if it interacts with things that exist." I mean, how much more circular can you get?
Wesley Posted July 12, 2013 Posted July 12, 2013 I mean, how much more circular can you get? Things that exist are defined as things that exist? [bigsmile][head2wall]
RestoringGuy Posted July 12, 2013 Posted July 12, 2013 The act of detection does not make something exist, but rather, if the thing can possibly be detected then it exists. If some universe is full of objects that are detectable, but there exists no observers, that does mean that these objects aren't detectable, that just means that no one knows that the objects are detectable. The definition does not require that anyone know that phenomena is detectable. You seem to be imposing memory into the definition. The definition does not require the existence of an observer. It just requires that if an observer is there, then the observer has to be able to detect it. That is a very good explanation. Plato still rocks. Everything in the universe is "an observer" because it is impacted by light and gravity in some small way. Such tiny impact is in response to everything else no matter how far away, and observation is just a physical response to any significant-enough impact. This idea of "detectability" is also applicable to the abstract concepts. Whether or not Fermat's Last Theorem is true, or whether 13 is a prime number, does not seem to become a fact thrust into existence the moment it is proven by a mathematician's mental process. Instead there is a sense in which it was always detectable, but nobody previously bothered to carry out the proper test. Otherwise, if mathematical facts are thrust into existence by a mental process, we have to explain how the universe synchronizes itself whenever two distant mathematicians reach the same conclusion independently. Existence is just a word we use to explain that things are not purely mental.
Victor Posted July 12, 2013 Posted July 12, 2013 I've been proposing the definition: to exist is to be composed of matter and/or energy This boils down to exist = matter/energy. What have we learned? This does not resolve the meaning of exist but rather appears to provide two synonyms. What is matter? What is energy? These are not basic concepts but crucial terms that make or break your definition. When we observe the universe, what we're observing is actually events where matter and energy interact. Those events have different properties and can be categorized. MATTER is identified by events in the universe that evidence mass, inertia and are affected by gravity. Examples are Protons, Neutrons, Planets and Stars. ENERGY (present in all events in the universe) is an indirect quantity observed by its effect on matter, usually defined by how much an amount of mass changes its position, speed, temperature, mass (I know, circular), or some other property. Examples are EM radiation, kinetic energy (related to momentum), temperature (or rate of event occurrence or interaction), etc. My take is that, like many other fundamental properties of the universe (time, space, light, leptons, spin, mass, etc.), scientists don’t know what Energy is in itself (whatever that means), but they have very good models of how it works. and interact with matter and/or energy. If something needs to interact with other existent entities in order to exist, then you are using the word exist to define the word exist, a circular definition. "Something exists if it interacts with things that exist." I mean, how much more circular can you get? If you take the definition apart and make two independent statements out of it, I can see the circularity you point at. But that is not the definition. To exist is to be composed of matter and/or energy and interact with matter and energy. I don't see any circularity there.
Victor Posted July 12, 2013 Posted July 12, 2013 I mean, how much more circular can you get? Things that exist are defined as things that exist? /emoticons/BigSmile_Anim.gif/emoticons/head2wall.gif To exist is to be composed of matter and/or energy and interact with matter and energy.
SirJamesIII Posted July 12, 2013 Posted July 12, 2013 " if the thing can possibly be detected then it exists." " It just requires that if an observer is there, then the observer has to be able to detect it [in order for the thing to exist] " Be detected by WHOM? See, you are attempting to idealize the notion of "detectability" into an objective standard. However, detection is necessarily by definition an observer-dependent concept. There is NO objective standard for detectability. Detectable is always relative to an observer. Objectively detectable is a contradiction. " if the thing can possibly be detected then it exists. "Before the telescope it was IMPOSSIBLE for anybody to see extremely distant stars, and even with our very best means of detection, there are still objects in the universe that can never possibly be detected by us either because they are too small or too far away or whatever. Do those objects not exist? ermagerd I've facepalmed like 5 times on this point already. The definition I'm working with is not observer dependent. It's just understandable and knowable if an observer is there. The distant stars were detectable regardless if we do or do not have technology to detect them. The star's detectability did not magically change once we invent the technology. They just weren't detectable by us but they were and always will be detectable even if every observer in the universe died out. The star was still possible to detect before the telescope. It's not like the star went, "oh shit, they invented a telescope now! Now I have to become detectable!" The physical state of the object does not magically change once we have the technology to detect them. The distant stars were detectable as long as they existed precisely because a photon can interact with them. Like I said earlier, you are taking the theory of relativity and taking it to erroneous philisophical conclusions. With respect to velocity, yes the quantities measured in experiments are subjective to the obsever. These relative quanties can still be objectively compensated for. It is not as if scientist A performs experiment x and scientist B performs experiment x, then the two scientists can never come to an agreement on what they observe. If it wasn't Galileo didn't perform his experiments on gravity then someone else would have found a quantity different than 32 fps^2 for the acceleration of gravity.
SirJamesIII Posted July 12, 2013 Posted July 12, 2013 " if the thing can possibly be detected then it exists." " It just requires that if an observer is there, then the observer has to be able to detect it [in order for the thing to exist] " Be detected by WHOM? See, you are attempting to idealize the notion of "detectability" into an objective standard. However, detection is necessarily by definition an observer-dependent concept. There is NO objective standard for detectability. Detectable is always relative to an observer. Objectively detectable is a contradiction. " if the thing can possibly be detected then it exists. "Before the telescope it was IMPOSSIBLE for anybody to see extremely distant stars, and even with our very best means of detection, there are still objects in the universe that can never possibly be detected by us either because they are too small or too far away or whatever. Do those objects not exist? ermagerd I've facepalmed like 5 times on this point already. The definition I'm working with is not observer dependent. It's just understandable and knowable if an observer is there. The distant stars were detectable regardless if we do or do not have technology to detect them. The star's detectability did not magically change once we invent the technology. They just weren't detectable by us but they were and always will be detectable even if every observer in the universe died out. The star was still possible to detect before the telescope. It's not like the star went, "oh shit, they invented a telescope now! Now I have to become detectable!" The physical state of the object does not magically change once we have the technology to detect them. The distant stars were detectable as long as they existed precisely because a photon can interact with them. Like I said earlier, you are taking the theory of relativity and taking it to erroneous philisophical conclusions. With respect to velocity, yes the quantities measured in experiments are subjective to the obsever. These relative quanties can still be objectively compensated for. It is not as if scientist A performs experiment x and scientist B performs experiment x, then the two scientists can never come to an agreement on what they observe. If it wasn't Galileo didn't perform his experiments on gravity then someone else would have found a quantity different than 32 fps^2 for the acceleration of gravity.
Victor Posted July 12, 2013 Posted July 12, 2013 The distant stars were detectable as long as they existed precisely because a photon can interact with them. Because this statement you made and the weaknesses in the definition you're working with, I suggest you start using mine: To exist is to be composed of matter and/or energy and interact with matter and energy.
RestoringGuy Posted July 13, 2013 Posted July 13, 2013 To exist is to be composed of matter and/or energy and interact with matter and energy. It's true things that are composed of matter and/or energy exist. There is some ambiguity in saying what exactly "interacts". It seems there are phenomena such as gravity which exist, and even gravity could be said to be composed of energy (a gravity field contains energy, even though it is generated by matter). To take it a step farther, my calculator interacts with the number 317. The number 317 is now composed of energy after I compute it. There are some who will object to this and say "numbers do not exist". But it seems to be nonsense, because numbers make predictions and often useful ones. Why is that important? Well if they are useful but still did not exist, there should be no guarantee my numbers behave like yours, nor should there be benefit to rely on numbers because we would be relying on dumb luck, since repeatable usefulness ought not continue to persist (ie. exist for later recall). It should be purely a mental game with no external proof by repeated experimentation. I will have my mathematics and you will have yours, and sharing and convincing others by proof should be basically off the table. I personally have no doubt a number such as 317 works the same way even after all energy that represents it is extinguished. But others imagine numbers are a human mental invention or some kind of trick, which I know is true as far as symbolism goes. 3 can be any number, it is convention we use the same symbol. Yet the conclusions that can be drawn from them, which seem to persist completely outside of changing social conventions, those are things that cannot be explained by a simple assertion that things without matter and energy automatically do not exist.
Victor Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 To exist is to be composed of matter and/or energy and interact with matter and energy. It's true things that are composed of matter and/or energy exist. There is some ambiguity in saying what exactly "interacts". It seems there are phenomena such as gravity which exist, and even gravity could be said to be composed of energy (a gravity field contains energy, even though it is generated by matter). To take it a step farther, my calculator interacts with the number 317. The number 317 is now composed of energy after I compute it. There are some who will object to this and say "numbers do not exist". But it seems to be nonsense, because numbers make predictions and often useful ones. Why is that important? Well if they are useful but still did not exist, there should be no guarantee my numbers behave like yours, nor should there be benefit to rely on numbers because we would be relying on dumb luck, since repeatable usefulness ought not continue to persist (ie. exist for later recall). It should be purely a mental game with no external proof by repeated experimentation. I will have my mathematics and you will have yours, and sharing and convincing others by proof should be basically off the table. I personally have no doubt a number such as 317 works the same way even after all energy that represents it is extinguished. But others imagine numbers are a human mental invention or some kind of trick, which I know is true as far as symbolism goes. 3 can be any number, it is convention we use the same symbol. Yet the conclusions that can be drawn from them, which seem to persist completely outside of changing social conventions, those are things that cannot be explained by a simple assertion that things without matter and energy automatically do not exist. Numeric, spatial and proportional properties of real things spring out of comparisons and categorizations. The categories don't exist in themselves, just as the quantities (or numbers) don't exist. Just like squareness, roundness, superiority, orbits, biological niches or female hotness, these things are concepts our minds are able to form, compute with, communicate and rely on to comprehend or confuse. They and numbers are immaterial and non-existent. They are as real as ghosts. You can do all these things with the concept ghost, or god. But concepts will never fill a bag, or push, pull, energize, or change any property of anything made of matter or any form of energy. Clearly the number 3 and the #3 Key in my keyboard have something fundamentally different between them. Now the number 3 and god have something different between them too. But you cannot say that one exists and the other does not. That would be incorrect and confusing. What you would say is that one is valid (or correct) and the other is not, because one relates to and describes properties of real existent things in the universe and the other one does not.
RestoringGuy Posted July 28, 2013 Posted July 28, 2013 Numeric, spatial and proportional properties of real things spring out of comparisons and categorizations. The categories don't exist in themselves, just as the quantities (or numbers) don't exist. Just like squareness, roundness, superiority, orbits, biological niches or female hotness, these things are concepts our minds are able to form, compute with, communicate and rely on to comprehend or confuse. They and numbers are immaterial and non-existent. They are as real as ghosts. You can do all these things with the concept ghost, or god. But concepts will never fill a bag, or push, pull, energize, or change any property of anything made of matter or any form of energy. Clearly the number 3 and the #3 Key in my keyboard have something fundamentally different between them. Now the number 3 and god have something different between them too. But you cannot say that one exists and the other does not. That would be incorrect and confusing. What you would say is that one is valid (or correct) and the other is not, because one relates to and describes properties of real existent things in the universe and the other one does not. Of course asserting "categories don't exist" doesn't make it so. Consider that saying such a thing is an act of categorization in itself, relying upon these supposedly nonexistent categories to say what categorization is not. Categorization is, to my thinking, never is an isolated disembodied thing. It's an action. And actions exist. I do not speak here of "concepts" as if the human mind is necessary. That is just a choice of words to load up physical action with a presupposition of mental strategy. What I mean is that any irregular rock formation can categorize raindrops by dividing them into drops that roll down one face or another. Some asteroids will crash into Earth, while others do not. Nature itself makes categories for us, even before we mentally project a word for such distinctions.
Victor Posted July 31, 2013 Posted July 31, 2013 Of course asserting "categories don't exist" doesn't make it so. Consider that saying such a thing is an act of categorization in itself, relying upon these supposedly nonexistent categories to say what categorization is not. Categorization is, to my thinking, never is an isolated disembodied thing. It's an action. And actions exist. I do not speak here of "concepts" as if the human mind is necessary. That is just a choice of words to load up physical action with a presupposition of mental strategy. What I mean is that any irregular rock formation can categorize raindrops by dividing them into drops that roll down one face or another. Some asteroids will crash into Earth, while others do not. Nature itself makes categories for us, even before we mentally project a word for such distinctions. I'm I using my terms correctly? cat•e•go•rize (ˈkæt ɪ gəˌraɪz) v.t. -rized, -riz•ing. 1. to arrange in categories or classes; classify. 2. to describe by labeling or giving a name to; characterize. A rock divides water into water drops. di·vide (d-vd) v. di·vid·ed, di·vid·ing, di·vides v.tr.1. a. To separate into parts, sections, groups, or branches A rock holds no classes, nor databases of characteristics, nor labels, nor names for the things it interacts with. A rock does not categorize. Now, we can use an rock as an instrument to divide some stuff, and then make it easy for us to categorize, but it's not the rock doing it. Again, we're working to come up with a framework that can properly deal with and model material reality, concepts and nonsense. I proposed a definition of existence that, I think we can agree, has held. I've also pointed out how concepts fit into that model or framework, in that they are immaterial and non-existent in themselves. Nonsense is just invalid concepts because it bares no direct rational relation with material reality. So, if you say that categories (or concepts, as this is what they are) or actions exist, you would need to challenge my definition of concepts or of existence.
TheRobin Posted July 31, 2013 Posted July 31, 2013 I'd say that concepts and categories do exist (interact with matter and energy) insofar as they're moving stuff in our brains around (or correlate to a movement of stuff in our brains). Just because the categoreis don't exist outside our brains doesn't seem to warrant putting them into the non-existent category.
Victor Posted July 31, 2013 Posted July 31, 2013 I'd say that concepts and categories do exist (interact with matter and energy) insofar as they're moving stuff in our brains around (or correlate to a movement of stuff in our brains). Just because the categoreis don't exist outside our brains doesn't seem to warrant putting them into the non-existent category. If you accept and agree to say for a category or a concept you hold in your brain, that these exist, then god exists, werewolves exist, roger rabbit and Speedy Gonzales exist... all of those exist, and you would need to go into a lot of details to be able to differentiate between them. Someone would need to come up with a clear-cut term to identify what does not relate rationally to properties of matter and energy, what does relate to properties of material stuff, and what is actually composed of material stuff. Isn't it just easier to say: My car exists. Car does not exist, but as a concept it is a valid one. God does not exist, and as a concept it's invalid.
TheRobin Posted July 31, 2013 Posted July 31, 2013 I don't see how the existence of a concept (like god or car) necessarily means the existence of what the concept represents. Sure the thought of a deity exists (else we couldn't talk about it) but that doesn't mean that the idea represents something outside our thoughts/brains.I think the idea that concepts and thoguhts don't exist comes more from an unclarity whether we talk about the properties of the thing that the word represents or the properties of the word itself than anything else. By your definition of exist, thoughts are certainly measurable and have an effect on our brains, so wouldn't saying concept/thoughts don't exist mean you'd need to redefine the word "exist" then?p.s. and no, I don't find it easier to say, but I guess, like anything language related, that comes down to habit. p.p.s. Happy Birthday! You made it another time around the sun!
RestoringGuy Posted August 1, 2013 Posted August 1, 2013 A rock holds no classes, nor databases of characteristics, nor labels, nor names for the things it interacts with. A rock does not categorize. Now, we can use an rock as an instrument to divide some stuff, and then make it easy for us to categorize, but it's not the rock doing it. Again, we're working to come up with a framework that can properly deal with and model material reality, concepts and nonsense. I proposed a definition of existence that, I think we can agree, has held. I've also pointed out how concepts fit into that model or framework, in that they are immaterial and non-existent in themselves. Nonsense is just invalid concepts because it bares no direct rational relation with material reality. So, if you say that categories (or concepts, as this is what they are) or actions exist, you would need to challenge my definition of concepts or of existence. Yes there is a school of thought (constructivism) that the "name of a thing" is essentially equivalent to the thing itself. I do not hold this view. A simple plastic coin sorter can "arrange into categories or classes" the coins that are inserted. The fact that the coin sorter did not originally invent and name the categories does not change its ability to carry out the basic "arranging" of matter. I say the categories and the ability for arrangement into categories can take place without words and verbal declaration. Our brains are basically just coin sorters, with the addition of electrochemistry instead of just arranging things by gravity. Words are just a trick to compress communication. I can force you to think of an elephant without demonstrating one. Nature must demonstrate the elephant. There are still categories, which elephants are viable, what foods they can eat, even if no words are invented to describe such things. Numbers are built into the periodic table, and no amount of saying "numbers do not exist" will allow lithium to behave like carbon even though the basic categorical difference is purely based on a numerical counting process.
Recommended Posts