Fifty
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yeah but I amended my view to be across any period of time! So if something existed at some time, then they can be said to exist, for the purposes of this thread.
I was unclear about the time thing initially though
What's your ontology?
- Thread starter Fifty
- Start date
Yeah but I amended my view to be across any period of time! So if something existed at some time, then they can be said to exist, for the purposes of this thread.
I was unclear about the time thing initially though
Alpine Trooper
AllCiv
The substructure of the universe regresses infinately towards smaller and smaller components. Behind atoms we find electrons, and behind electrons quarks. Each layer unraveled reveals new secrets, but also new mysteries.
Fifty
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Yeah but I amended my view to be across any period of time! So if something existed at some time, then they can be said to exist, for the purposes of this thread.
I was unclear about the time thing initially though
Well.. I suppose so.
I'm not really convinced that things really exist in the way most people would use the word, though. QM points to a very strange nature of reality that I don't think anyone quite understands yet.
What if 'existence' is relative? What if "Does X exist?" has different answers for different observers?
Pretty much. I mean, it's pretty arrogant to tell philosophers how to define their own jargon, isn't it?
lovett
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2007
- Messages
- 2,570
Why?
Excepting that definition, we have just the mind. Therefore, all our assumptions about physics are just that: assumptions.
Therefore, it seems asinine to decide that the existence of a (physical?) mind
can be inferred from the existence of mental properties.
Perhaps, but the substructure of the universe is made not out of matter, but space. Therefore, the questions is not whether matter is discrete or divisible, but whether space is. Because surely matter cannot exist without space.
Interestingly, space may well be indivisible.
Another question in the same vein would be whether something can exist without duration?
Masquerouge
Deity
From your list, I say that atoms exist (don't want to go into the atoms/quarks/leptons level of detail).
Gunk, my mind, your mind, ordinary objects are products of atoms.
Abstract objects, void and God are products of our minds.
Gunk, my mind, your mind, ordinary objects are products of atoms.
Abstract objects, void and God are products of our minds.
It seems to me that atoms and gunk are essentially the two possible options if there is a material universe. One or the other (or both) must exist.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
In what way? (just wondering)
They're little pieces of stuff which, when put together, make bigger pieces of stuff. My hands that are typing these letters are made of those things. They're the Loc Blocs of the universe (or, if you prefer Legos, they're the Legos of the universe).
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Define 'stuff'
Masquerouge
Deity
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
I guess what I'm trying to get that is that an electron exists everywhere.. and it exists nowhere.
until you observe it.
until you observe it.
Fifty
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well, it seems like there is always a 3rd option (which is maybe what warpus is talking about): crazy, extremely counterintuitive QM crap that we don't really understand at all yet.
I'd rather not take the time to go over this with you or anyone else. I'd end up having to show you proofs of how electrons and protons are proven to exist and other stuff that I don't want to do.
Masquerouge
Deity
Mmmh. Upon rereading the poll options, it seems I misunderstood "gunk".
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
I think that's what my 2nd year physics book was subtitled with.
If I perceive something does it therefore exist? How can there ever truly be a purely objective observer defining what exists and what does not?
Similar threads
