17

# How do you determine something exists?

kennethamy

2
Fri 11 Jun, 2010 11:49 pm
@talk72000,
It seems to me that if something occurs, then that something exists. And therefore, if something occurs in your mind (like a thought) then it exists. Of course, what corresponds to that thought, might not exist, but it does not follow from the fact that something might not exist that it does not exist, nor even, that we do not know that it exists. Everything that exists might not exist, but that is no reason in the world to think (of any particular thing) that it does not exist, nor that it cannot be known to exist.
0 Replies

Owen phil

3
Sat 12 Jun, 2010 06:08 am
@talk72000,
"Science deals with this world and existence"

I don't agree.
Truth exists, is clear. But, there is no place in science from which we can conclude that Truth exists.
Science deals with space-time-mass etc.

Words, language, numbers, etc., all exist without science.
Indeed, they must exist prior to any science.
There are no 'abstract things' that are confirmed to exist in virtue of science at all.
0 Replies

ughaibu

1
Sat 12 Jun, 2010 06:35 am
@Owen phil,
Owen phil wrote:
E!x, iff, x exists .
E!x =df (some F)(Fx).
E!x <-> (some F)(Fx).
x exists, means, there is some property that x has.

If we can assert that x has a property then we can assert that x exists.
Take the set of all cardinalities, the cardinality of this set is larger than any element, thus the largest cardinal is smaller than itself. So, we have an object with a property, by which we can say that it exists, but we can also say that by self contradiction, this object doesn't exist. So, I reject the notion that properties imply existence.
Owen phil

1
Sat 12 Jun, 2010 06:56 am
@ughaibu,
ughaibu wrote:

Owen phil wrote:
E!x, iff, x exists .
E!x =df (some F)(Fx).
E!x <-> (some F)(Fx).
x exists, means, there is some property that x has.

If we can assert that x has a property then we can assert that x exists.
Take the set of all cardinalities, the cardinality of this set is larger than any element, thus the largest cardinal is smaller than itself. So, we have an object with a property, by which we can say that it exists, but we can also say that by self contradiction, this object doesn't exist. So, I reject the notion that properties imply existence.

I don't understand your (exception) argument.

1. The cardinality of all cardinalities is larger than any element..........OK.
2. Thus, the largest cardinal is smaller than itself......what? Why?

I agree that: if we have a (self?) contradictory conclusion about a purported object then that object does not exist, but, what object are you talking about?

The set of all cardinalities has properties and does not exist??
The largest cardinal (is smaller than itself?) has properties and does not exist??
ughaibu

1
Sat 12 Jun, 2010 07:03 am
@Owen phil,
Owen phil wrote:
1. The cardinality of all cardinalities is larger than any element..........OK.
2. Thus, the largest cardinal is smaller than itself......what? Why?
Because it is the cardinality of the set of which it's an element.
Owen phil wrote:
The set of all cardinalities has properties and does not exist??
The largest cardinal (is smaller than itself?) has properties and does not exist??
Either will do.
Owen phil

1
Sat 12 Jun, 2010 07:16 am
@ughaibu,
ughaibu wrote:

Owen phil wrote:
1. The cardinality of all cardinalities is larger than any element..........OK.
2. Thus, the largest cardinal is smaller than itself......what? Why?

Because it is the cardinality of the set of which it's an element.
Owen phil wrote:
The set of all cardinalities has properties and does not exist??
The largest cardinal (is smaller than itself?) has properties and does not exist??
Either will do.

I still don't get it.
The cardinality of the set {1,2,3} is 3. And, 3 is a membr of {1,2,3}.
So what?

If you are talking about infinity as a unique number then I agree that it does not exist, and therefore it does not have any properties.
ughaibu

1
Sat 12 Jun, 2010 07:30 am
@Owen phil,
Owen phil wrote:
I still don't get it.
The cardinality of the set {1,2,3} is 3. And, 3 is a membr of {1,2,3}.
So what?
I'm not talking about a set of numerical representations of cardinalities, I'm talking about the set of all cardinalities themselves. In your example, the cardinality of the set would be six.
Owen phil

1
Sat 12 Jun, 2010 07:37 am
@ughaibu,
Evidently I do not understand what you are talking about.

Could you provide a different example of something that has properties and does not exist?
ughaibu

1
Sat 12 Jun, 2010 07:50 am
@Owen phil,
Owen phil wrote:
Could you provide a different example of something that has properties and does not exist?
Unmeasurable sets or any non-mathematical fictional object.
George

2
Sat 12 Jun, 2010 07:59 am
I think it all comes down to awareness. I am aware of things. How do I
determine they exist? Well, obviously they exist in that I am aware of them.
But do they exist independently of my awareness? I don't think that there is
an answer for that which will satisfy everyone. Perhaps awareness will have
to do.
0 Replies

Owen phil

1
Sat 12 Jun, 2010 08:21 am
@ughaibu,
ughaibu wrote:

Owen phil wrote:
Could you provide a different example of something that has properties and does not exist?
Unmeasurable sets or any non-mathematical fictional object.

What is an unmeasurable set?

If Santa has a property, then Santa exists.
But, there is no property that Santa has.
That is to say, there is no fact (situation) that includes Santa.
Fictional objects have no existence in the actual world.

Santa wears black boots, confirmed within the context of the Myth, is a psuedo-truth, not a truth about the world.
ughaibu

1
Sat 12 Jun, 2010 08:32 am
@Owen phil,
Owen phil wrote:
If Santa has a property, then Santa exists.
But, there is no property that Santa has.
Santa has properties by assertion, and you have stated that "if we can assert that x has a property then we can assert that x exists".
Owen phil wrote:
Fictional objects have no existence in the actual world.
Neither have unexpressed propositions. Do you hold the position that a true proposition about some as yet unnamed number doesn't exist until expressed?
Owen phil

1
Sat 12 Jun, 2010 09:01 am
@ughaibu,
What properties does Santa have (by assertion) or any other way?

"Neither have unexpressed propositions." what does this mean?

"Do you hold the position that a true proposition about some as yet unnamed number doesn't exist until expressed? "

There is some x such that it is greater than 3 and less than 5, is true without mentioning the number 4.
(that natural number which is greater than 3 and less than 5) exists, is true.
(that natural number which is greater than 3 and less that 4) does not exist.
ughaibu

1
Sat 12 Jun, 2010 09:07 am
@Owen phil,
Owen phil wrote:
what does this mean?
Almost all natural numbers will never be named, no proposition will ever be asserted about these numbers. Do you hold the position that these propositions exist?
kennethamy

1
Sat 12 Jun, 2010 09:27 am
@Owen phil,
Yes. Plato also seems to have thought that there were properties that were not instantiated. And indeed even that no properties are instantiate. For example he held that only The Red is red. It is a view that takes getting used to. But philosophers are used to getting used to views that need getting used to.
0 Replies

Owen phil

1
Sat 12 Jun, 2010 09:27 am
@ughaibu,
ughaibu wrote:

Owen phil wrote:
what does this mean?
Almost all natural numbers will never be named, no proposition will ever be asserted about these numbers. Do you hold the position that these propositions exist?

That these un-named numbers are numbers, can be asserted, therefore they do exist.
Surely, these un-named numbers are numbers ..is a proposition about them.
ughaibu

1
Sat 12 Jun, 2010 09:43 am
@Owen phil,
Owen phil wrote:
That these un-named numbers are numbers, can be asserted, therefore they do exist.
Well, inaccessible cardinals which are smaller than themselves are numbers, as this can and has been asserted, I take it that your position commits you to their existence.
fresco

1
Sat 12 Jun, 2010 09:56 am
@Huxley,
Quote:
I'm mostly asking what the process you follow is. However, if you have a proscriptive outline, then by all means feel free to share.

Anybody here go around checking on "existence" ?

Unless you in a field of discourse in which you name a hitherto unnamed entity, and state a procedure for its agreed reification, the problem never arises. As Heidegger said, we are "thrown" (as in clay) in a linguistically pre-segmented world of inter-relationships. Existence IS relationship. No "thinger" = no "thinged" and most of the thinging has already been done for us.
Huxley

1
Sat 12 Jun, 2010 10:17 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

Anybody here go around checking on "existence" ?

Not exactly, no, though I'd say phrasing the question in that manner is a little different than what I intended, at least. I don't check on existence, to see if it's still there, or some such nonsense. I do, however, wonder if some concepts correspond to reality or not -- whether they are objects, or whether they exist in some other way.

Quote:
Unless you in a field of discourse in which you name a hitherto unnamed entity, and state a procedure for its agreed reification, the problem never arises.

Have you never thought about whether God does or does not exist? I would argue that most people have, and so the problem isn't just a field of specialty. Further, I would also contend that one shouldn't restrict themselves to their "special field of interest" -- as if questions outside of your economic function are worthless to think about.

Quote:
As Heidegger said, we are "thrown" (as in clay) in a linguistically pre-segmented world of inter-relationships. Existence IS relationship. No "thinger" = no "thinged" and most of the thinging has already been done for us.

So what our language (and our cultural use of that language) states exists is what exists? Is this how you determine whether something does or does not exist?
Owen phil

1
Sat 12 Jun, 2010 10:31 am
@ughaibu,
ughaibu wrote:

Owen phil wrote:
That these un-named numbers are numbers, can be asserted, therefore they do exist.
Well, inaccessible cardinals which are smaller than themselves are numbers, as this can and has been asserted, I take it that your position commits you to their existence.

What? The x such that x<x, does not exist.
An x such that x<x, doesn't exist either.

There are no things which satisy 'contradictory descriptions'.
x<x, is a contradictory predication of x.
~(some x)(x<x).

We cannot assert that: Those numbers which are less than themselve are numbers.
Terms referred to by contradictory predications, do not exist.

That's like saying, the present king of France is a king.

### Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz