How do you determine something exists?

kennethamy wrote:

north wrote:

kennethamy

sometimes a circular argument is true nonetheless

again

to determine that something exists , is to do without its existence and understand the consequences

for us , Humans , it is about air and water

No. Because no arguments are either true or false. The question about argument is whether of not they prove their conclusions. Now, consider the following argument: 1. The world is round. Therefore, 2. the world is round. Now the conclusion is clearly true. Would you consider that the argument proved the conclusion true. Circular arguments may very well have true conclusions. But so what. That does not mean that the circular argument proved its conclusion true. There is a reason why to say that an argument is circular is a criticism of the argument. It is because a circular argument does not make its conclusion believable.

I have no idea what the rest of your post is all about.

If you could only get people to buy into your premise you could prove anything... The world is spherical which is like a sphere, and is more like saying something is roundish... In fact, nothing can be proved conclusively true or false, but believable and unbelievable... The fact that an argument is in some senses circular does not disallow its relative truth... It just does not make a very logical argument... I have two books going on logic though it is far from my favorite subject... And I do not think you have stated a circular argument correctly... It is as if we say that in a syllogism that we must take for granted the very point we expect to prove, and when we are done we are still only a little more certain of the point we take for granted... Does that make sense to you???

north wrote:

kennethamy

sometimes a circular argument is true nonetheless

again

to determine that something exists , is to do without its existence and understand the consequences

for us , Humans , it is about air and water

Quote:

No. Because no arguments are either true or false.

so are you saying , Humans don't need air or water to exist ?

and both are true

Quote:

The question about argument is whether of not they prove their conclusions. Now, consider the following argument: 1. The world is round. Therefore, 2. the world is round. Now the conclusion is clearly true. Would you consider that the argument proved the conclusion true. Circular arguments may very well have true conclusions. But so what. That does not mean that the circular argument proved its conclusion true. There is a reason why to say that an argument is circular is a criticism of the argument. It is because a circular argument does not make its conclusion believable.

irrelevent to my post

since the geometrical shape of the world has nothing to do with my post

Quote:

I have no idea what the rest of your post is all about.

obviously

come on guy , where talking about determining that something exists

air and water exist , to argue otherwise makes no sense

more importantly I have no idea of the relevence of your post

Existence is something we take for granted, and that must be disproved; and this is the only logical method since there is no objective proof of existence that cannot itself be called into question...

Fido wrote:

Existence is something we take for granted, and that must be disproved; and this is the only logical method since there is no objective proof of existence that cannot itself be called into question...

which seems odd really

I mean if I take myself into the Arctic , devoid of clothes I will freeze to death

because of the reality of the frigid air

now question this

north wrote:

Fido wrote:

Existence is something we take for granted, and that must be disproved; and this is the only logical method since there is no objective proof of existence that cannot itself be called into question...

which seems odd really

I mean if I take myself into the Arctic , devoid of clothes I will freeze to death

because of the reality of the frigid air

now question this

Easy... If you are dead, you never were, because what we say of matter goes for you, that it cannot be created nor destroyed... Even if we admit that matter in motion is energy, then energy is matter; but what are you if you can be so easily snuffed out of existence as though you never were??? Existence is an infinite, and we are finite... Finites cannot prove infinites... We, including all life and humanity, have such a small frame of existence that we prove nothing in the course of our lives... Proof is inessential to the real question: Life... And of life there is no proof, and only testimony which we must be alive to deliver...

Kant said all we can have is finite knowledge... It is because we are finite ourselves and can gain no true perspective on any infinite... That does not stop us from trying, but it does get old...

Fido wrote:

Kant said all we can have is finite knowledge... It is because we are finite ourselves and can gain no true perspective on any infinite... That does not stop us from trying, but it does get old...

I disagree

the infinite is quite easy to understand

fundamentaly energy and matter MUST be infinite

this not about perspective , this understanding is beyond perspective and is about reality

north wrote:

Fido wrote:

Kant said all we can have is finite knowledge... It is because we are finite ourselves and can gain no true perspective on any infinite... That does not stop us from trying, but it does get old...

I disagree

the infinite is quite easy to understand

fundamentaly energy and matter MUST be infinite

this not about perspective , this understanding is beyond perspective and is about reality

Your understanding of the infinite is false bravado... And How can I say differently since understanding is not thought, and is not belief, and is not knowledge... To know something it must be conceivable as an object with bounds, and if the indinite really has no bounds it cannot be known by being conceived since all true conceptions are also definitions and we cannot de-fine what is in-fin-ite... Understanding is something we do at a personal level, like belief, and there is a similarity between the two since many things we say we understand we only believe true... And of infinites, which are by far the greater part of our reality, what we believe true we say is true, and that we know it is true, but it is faith/belief to say we know that part of reality we cannot know carries on the same beyond the part of reality we do know....

Fil; we deal with infinities everyday, like God, Justice, Liberty, and all moral forms, really... People attempt to define these qualities and find they cannot simply because their applications and possibilities are endless... Since our lives are finite, and even the life of humanity is finite, we cannot from that perspective say much at all of infinites and since it is not necessary to, who should bother... Everything we need to define we can define in terms of our own existence or of the existence of humanity... Everything we need to know we can know within the perspective of humanity or self, but we may have to exclude certainty as an impossibility and just give it our best shot... MY concern with infinites is parochial while yours is cosmological... I am not going to call you wrong just because your definition in your definition... I simply do not bother with an abstract definition of an infinite which is already an abstraction... I do not seek abstractions of abstractions... If my abstraction alone does not help me to grasp reality, it is time to chuck it...