What's your ontology?

[Masquerouge]

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?

I think you can have a definition of existence which is "that which you can perceive", and which can be pretty useful.

 

[Ayatollah So]

Perfection's ontology is pretty close to mine so I'll just add some comments to his.

void
I dunno, space certainly exists but I wouldn't consider that "void" because it's a dynamic mass/energy system.

In my very hazy understanding of physics, space and time seem more like properties of the entire universe than entities unto themselves.

abstract objects (numbers, sets, concepts, properties, etc.)
Mathematics seems to have an existance in some sort of reality distinct from the merely physical. It seems to encompass not only all the universe but other systems that don't bear semblance to that of the universe. Weird stuff.

As Einstein quipped, our theories should be as simple as possible to explain the data, but no simpler. An ontology without mathematical and kindred abstract objects would be "simpler". And, fitting them into atoms/void/gunk categories seems hopeless.

I also wish to add:
other
All mereological combinations of existents, also exist. Also, I'd hate to be taken as implying that other categories often philosophically debated, don't exist - so I'm affirming the "other" category to cover some of them. For examples:
moral qualities
semantic word/world relations

 

[D0NIMATRIX]

@illram

Kind of like the matrix.

You forgot the dimensions Fifty.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Fifty - Could you make a deifintion of exist, before I start voting?

Its difficult to make a non-circular definition of exist, but I'd roughly say "to exist is to be exemplified somewhere in the universe."

My thoughts

atoms (in the 'indivisible units of matter' sense)
I'm pretty sure the universe runs on these little beasties, so I'd consider them to exist.

void
I dunno, space certainly exists but I wouldn't consider that "void" because it's a dynamic mass/energy system.

gunk (substance that can be divided infinitely)
I hesitate to say it doesn't exist, because it clearly is an extremely useful model of many things in reality, but ultimately it doesn't seem to be "fundamentally true"

ordinary material objects (tables, chairs, mountains, etc.)
They exist, but the nature of thier existance while not contradictory to our decriptions of them is far more complex and fuzzy.

your mind
other minds
Minds seem to me to be physical objects

abstract objects (numbers, sets, concepts, properties, etc.)
Mathematics seems to have an existance in some sort of reality distinct from the merely physical. It seems to encompass not only all the universe but other systems that don't bear semblance to that of the universe. Weird stuff.

god
God alone isn't

So noted Perf. It is nice to have you back.

Exists = That which is infinite, eternal, permanent and unchanging.

So according to that definition...drum roll please....God alone is.

Change the definition and you get an different answer. All answers to this question are dependent upon one's definition of "exists".

 

[Rambuchan]

Pretty much. I mean, it's pretty arrogant to tell philosophers how to define their own jargon, isn't it?

Bingo! You might even say that it comes across as idiotic, as well as arrogant, to barge into a discussion and apply entirely inappropriate tools of analysis. It's not clever, it's not cool and it's not funny. And that's the point. My conduct in holding up the mirror to Fifty here has not been constructive for this particular discussion and for that I apologise to all.

 

[Mise]

Change the definition and you get an different answer. All answers to this question are dependent upon one's definition of "exists".

I think that's the point. If we had a definition of "exists" of the necessary-and-sufficient type then there wouldn't be much doubt over what exactly exists, including God. The fact that some people believe X exists while others don't indicates that such a definition is impossible, or at least meaningless. The point, therefore, is to determine whether we can agree on what exists, as far as possible, and then construct a meaningful definition based on that.

I think you can have a definition of existence which is "that which you can perceive", and which can be pretty useful.

(And @ Illram): What do you mean by perceive? Do you mean "touch/see/hear/sense" etc?

 

[brennan]

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.

Have you read 'the Tao of Physics'?

(I know Ram has - i've seen his bookshelf.)

 

[Perfection]

So noted Perf. It is nice to have you back.

Exists = That which is infinite, eternal, permanent and unchanging.

So according to that definition...drum roll please....God alone is.

Change the definition and you get an different answer. All answers to this question are dependent upon one's definition of "exists".

Certainly, but changing the definition in such a manner that it doesn't agree with commonly held ideas of what a word is is certainly not acceptable, as I believe you have done. "infinite, eternal, permanent and unchanging" doesn't work well with the common notion of existance.

 

[Perfection]

I'm undecided on the issue (my inclination is that holes exist, because they seem to be causally efficacious... but thats just intuition talking, not the result of a substantive argument). In case you want some food for thought, here's a dialogue on holes.

What the greasy poop do you mean by that?

Interestingly, holes also appear in quantum mechanics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_hole

 

[Fifty]

What the greasy poop do you mean by that?

Well, the void by definition doesn't really do anything. But holes seem to have causal contact with stuff (e.g. the hole in my shoe caused my foot to get wet). Its tough for me to imagine how something non-existent can be causally efficacious like that.

I don't think holes are "material objects" in the same sense that tables and chairs are, but rather I think that they are abstract objects, maybe some sort of spatial relation.

Again, though, thats just kinda a guess, I haven't really thought about this stuff much.

 

[Perfection]

Well, the void by definition doesn't really do anything. But holes seem to have causal contact with stuff (e.g. the hole in my shoe caused my foot to get wet). Its tough for me to imagine how something non-existent can be causally efficacious like that.

I don't think holes are "material objects" in the same sense that tables and chairs are, but rather I think that they are abstract objects, maybe some sort of spatial relation.

Well, what about a vacuum? A vacuum can certainly have the same sort of causal contact as a hole (e. q. the vacuum caused the astronaut to asphixiate), but it seems to not be a sort of spatial relation like holes are.

I think I have a pretty good solution though, we treat space itself as a material object. After all, its topology certainly effects us, and relativity has shown that we can effect it. I would say that space certainly fits the bill as a material object.

And since holes and vacuums all just some part of space then we could call them material objects just of different composition and claim that they exist just as much as a chair does.

 

[brennan]

Or you could just accept that we have a word for a lack of something, and a lack of something is a different state of affairs to its presence.

Holes do not exist.

 

[Perfection]

Well, we seem to treat holes and vacuums like material objects, in a way different concepts like "nothing".

As Fifty said, a hole can cause something, but "nothing" can't cause something. If we are to say "nothing caused something", then that something would be implied to not have a cause, whereas the presence of a hole would certainly be a cause for Fifty's dripping socks!

 

[lovett]

Well, the void by definition doesn't really do anything. But holes seem to have causal contact with stuff (e.g. the hole in my shoe caused my foot to get wet). Its tough for me to imagine how something non-existent can be causally efficacious like that.

As Fifty said, a hole can cause something, but "nothing" can't cause something. If we are to say "nothing caused something", then that something would be implied to not have a cause, whereas the presence of a hole would certainly be a cause for Fifty's dripping socks!

One could argue that the shoe is doing the causing: it prevents Fifty getting his foot wet. Therefore, the 'natural state' of Fifty's foot is that of being wet.

Thus, the 'hole' isn't causing anything. The shoe is causing something.The abscence of the shoe means that casual affect stops.

 

[illram]

(And @ Illram): What do you mean by perceive? Do you mean "touch/see/hear/sense" etc?

That pretty much covers it. I mean sense in any way. To an extent belief in existence means it exists. I've never seen an atom, but I believe they exist, therefore they "are."


One could logically take it to an extreme and say that if I think a 1000lb polar bear is in my living room, it exists, but I don't necessarily think that. Just that "existence" is, in my opinion, dependent on the person making the observation. (Of course in some cases the presence of an imaginary polar bear might be real enough to someone that it does indeed exist to that person.)

 

[warpus]

There is no such thing as an 'empty' hole. There's always something there.. holes exist. (when observed)

 

[raketooy]

Damn accidental double. Sorry.

 

[raketooy]

I checked all but gunk and none. I was really on the fence between atoms and gunk. I wasn't quite sure if I think a god exists, but now I checked it. I am not really religious, but I tend to think that there is a god. From my point of view, atheism is justified as well as theism is; I am more of an agnostic but it doesn't prevent me from thinking about the question.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Certainly, but changing the definition in such a manner that it doesn't agree with commonly held ideas of what a word is is certainly not acceptable, as I believe you have done. "infinite, eternal, permanent and unchanging" doesn't work well with the common notion of existance.

Yes I have put forth an uncommon definition, but before you poo poo it, can the rest of you agree on what "exists' means? Does a hole exist?

You may not like my definition, but is reasonably clear and exact and doesn't leave too many grey areas. A "hole" does not exist. But just because a hole does not exist, doesn't mean you caannot get a birdie on 18. It provides a foundation from which to view all the things that are finite, temporal, changing and impermanent. It doesn't say that an atom is not an atom or that the orbits of the planets are governed by mysterious unknow forces. It is a definition that puts science, religion and philosophy etc. into a context and it does so without ever saying that by using such a definition there is anything that actually does exisit. "God alone is." is certainly not an automatic corollary of it. It just says that for a "thing" to be Real it must meet four criteria. It does not say that anything actually does.

 

[Fifty]

mr. jaguar: how would you define "God"?