How do you determine something exists?

@ughaibu,

ughaibu wrote:

Extrain wrote:
what makes you think paraconsistent logic is sound formal system in direct challenge to classical First-Order Logic anyway?
Paraconsistent set theory is mathematically interesting, according to mathematicians, and allows for proofs of some things which can only be assumed in ZF.

Like what, exactly? And what is "ZF"?

ughaibu wrote:

I see no reason to privilege either system.

Then why did you bring it up? A formal system which either calls into question or challenges both the LNC and the principle of bivalence dangerously undermines ALL rational thought. I see every reason to prefer classical first-order logic--the only means by which anyone can make sense of the world-- over the sophistry of some "fuzzy" logicians. You need to do much more to motivate your point here...whatever it is...

ughaibu wrote:

However, the point is unimportant, unless you can establish that properties imply existence for the objects mooted in ZF but not in paraconsistent set theories. Then again, why ZF? Why set theory?

I don't understand. Please explain. What is "ZF"? What do you mean by "the objects mooted"? I don't understand how paraconsistent set theory implies that logically impossible objects exist, either. You will have to explain that one. It doesn't even make sense to me conceptually.

ughaibu wrote:

And there is nothing in Owen's post which constitutes a reason to suppose that properties imply existence.

Why? This isn't an objection. What reason do you have for thinking those axioms are false?

1 Reply

@Extrain,

Extrain wrote:

I see every reason to prefer classical first-order logic--the only means by which anyone can make sense of the world

Well, I'm certainly not going to entertain the claim that properties imply existence for no better reason than that it's part of a scheme which allows a person to claim that they can make sense of the world. Do you have some demonstration that the world is the kind of thing that is within the intellectual compass of human beings?

1 Reply

@Huxley,

Basically, I would venture or hazard a claim that all the disciplines are a branch of philosophy except they have specialized into that corner of the world. Science is natural philosophy but developed special methods that deal with the observable world we live in. If a philosopher wants to criticize or makes observations in that field it should be necessary that he avails himself with the basics of that field to make any kind of assertion. To speak about existence it is necessary to learn a bit of science not necessarily be a scientist. After all at the formation of any real discovery all the fundamentals of philosophic thoughts are required which Aristotle and others developed such as to how non-contradictory sentences can be correct constructed and so on. Syllogism is the word isn't it. A good example would be the question of God. Does He/She exist or not? It be proven mathematically that God would be an improbable being. What is the basis of mathematics. It is an abstraction of the real world though simplified. No things are alike, really. Use an electronic microscope or even look at snow flakes. All are different. We simplify things and give equality therefore even mathematics does not reflect the real world.

0 Replies

@ughaibu,

ughaibu wrote:

Extrain wrote:
I see every reason to prefer classical first-order logic--the only means by which anyone can make sense of the world
Well, I'm certainly not going to entertain the claim that properties imply existence for no better reason than that it's part of a scheme which allows a person to claim that they can make sense of the world. Do you have some demonstration that the world is the kind of thing that is within the intellectual compass of human beings?

The continued and enjoyed scientific success of logical and mathematical application to the empirical world is certainly one reason to think the world is within the intellectual compass of human beings. What reason do you have to doubt this? The order of your skepticism would be misplaced if you did.

1 Reply

@Extrain,

Extrain wrote:

. . . . . one reason to think the world is within the intellectual compass of human beings. What reason do you have to doubt this?

The algorithmic intractability at the base level, mathematical randomness, etc.

1 Reply

@ughaibu,

ughaibu wrote:

Extrain wrote:
. . . . . one reason to think the world is within the intellectual compass of human beings. What reason do you have to doubt this?
The algorithmic intractability at the base level, mathematical randomness, etc.

huh? Isn't this a reason for thinking we can understand the world, rather than not? In particular, how is mathematical randomness a counterexample to our belief in the inherent rationality of the Law of Non-contradiction? And does not the functioning of all mathematics depend on the prior obvious truth that no number is less than itself?

1 Reply

@Huxley,

Quote:

How do you determine something exists?

Finding it usually suffices...

Ever wonder why you don't see jobs for philosophers on Monster or Dice??

0 Replies

@Extrain,

Extrain wrote:

ughaibu wrote:
The algorithmic intractability at the base level, mathematical randomness, etc.
Isn't this a reason for thinking we can understand the world, rather than not?

Okay, the world is basically not the kind of thing that can be mathematically modeled. In other words, human beings can not accurately describe the world. Tell me, how does this inability imply an ability to make sense of the world?

1 Reply

@ughaibu,

ughaibu wrote:

Extrain wrote:
ughaibu wrote:
The algorithmic intractability at the base level, mathematical randomness, etc.
Isn't this a reason for thinking we can understand the world, rather than not?
Okay, the world is basically not the kind of thing that can be mathematically modeled. In other words, human beings can not accurately describe the world. Tell me, how does this inability imply an ability to make sense of the world?

huh? Since when is the world "incapable" of being mathematically modeled? We do this all the time, and rather successfully, do we not? And does not the successful empirical application of all mathematical formula contained in scientific theory depend on the prior obvious truth that no number is less than itself? Does the world ever show us othewise? Where are you going with this?.....

1 Reply

@Extrain,

Extrain wrote:

Since when is the world "incapable" of being mathematically modeled?

ughaibu wrote:

The algorithmic intractability at the base level, mathematical randomness

Extrain wrote:

Where are you going with this?.....

I'm waiting for you to give me a convincing reason to suppose that the world is something that is within the human intellectual compass, and thereby justify the notion that existence claims follow from a particular way in which human beings believe that they can make sense of the world.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

When YOU say "unicorns" what you are talking about is your relationship with the concept "unicorn". Like me, you presumably have a relationship involving "positive visual image", "negative materiality", etc such that you don't expect to see one in a zoo. Consider however a young child and his relationship with "Santa". Consider too a scientist and his relationship with "electrons" or even "atoms" (which nobody has ever seen).

Try taking off your "naive realist" hat. and investigate the history of terms like "the humours of the body", "phlogiston", the "luminiferous ether" etc . Was the use of such terms "word magic" or was it about social paradigms (semantic networks) in the sense of Kuhn and a shifting zeitgeist ? Isn't it self-evident, irrespective of recent support from physics, that observer and observed are two sides of the same coin ?

The fact that we operate on a daily basis as though there were "an objective reality" is a pragmatic position at the same level of thinking such as that of "the sun circling the earth" for everyday purposes (for all except astronauts), in accordance with the words "sunrise" and "sunset".

1 Reply

@ughaibu,

ughaibu wrote:

Extrain wrote:
Since when is the world "incapable" of being mathematically modeled?
ughaibu wrote:
The algorithmic intractability at the base level, mathematical randomness
Extrain wrote:
Where are you going with this?.....
I'm waiting for you to give me a convincing reason to suppose that the world is something that is within the human intellectual compass, and thereby justify the notion that existence claims follow from a particular way in which human beings believe that they can make sense of the world.

I already gave you reasons. Again, how does mathematical randomness support your doubt rather than undermine it? That some parts of the world are mathematically random is a piece of knowledge that have about the world; it is a phenomenon that we can measure; and through the accumulation of enough data, forms a consistent natural regularity from which we can predict the likelihood of future events. Just think of the half-life of radioactive decay: Statistically, this is a measureable natural consistency. We have much more reason to suppose mathematics has application than not. So what, exactly, is your counter-argument to my claim that continued scientific success is evidence that reason, logic, and mathematics have empirical application? What reason do you have to think otherwise? So far, you seem to be putting your head in the sand.

On the other hand: why do you think logically impossible objects exist, such as numbers less than themselves?

1 Reply

@Extrain,

Extrain wrote:

I already gave you reasons.

Fair enough, and I already rejected your reasons.

Extrain wrote:

why do you think logically impossible objects exist, such as numbers less than themselves?

1) they're not logically impossible
2) I dont think that they exist.

0 Replies

ughaibu wrote:

Extrain wrote:
I already gave you reasons.
Fair enough, and I already rejected your reasons.

Yeah? On what ground?

ughaibu wrote:

Extrain wrote:
why do you think logically impossible objects exist, such as numbers less than themselves?
1) they're not logically impossible

Yes they are. "4<4" is an intrinsic contradiction. Just repeating the alleged views of other "fuzzy" logicians you randomly find online (and for which you cannot source at all) doesn't do anyone any good. It amounts to saying contradictions are logically permissible (or true), a clear absurdity no one has to accept as having any degree of credibility until you yourself can give sufficient and compelling reason to think otherwise.

Besides, you can't even give an instance of a number that is less than itself. Until you do, this discussion is pointless.

0 Replies

I would say to verify if you really exist is to pinch yourself until the pain is unbearable, hows that

1 Reply

@talk72000,

The problem with using Descartesian affirmation of existence in the attempt to prove all existence is that Descartes' solution only applies to something with thought capacity (ie: humans). A rock, however, does not have thought. This rock's existence is not necessarily related to its absence of thought.

This is the Descartes logic-
If I think, I am.
if X then Y

This is the flawed assumption-
If a rock can think, it is.
If Z then Y

2 Replies

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall wrote:

I would say to verify if you really exist is to pinch yourself until the pain is unbearable, hows that

Not so great, since you have to know it is you who is having the pain in the first place, so you would be begging the question.

0 Replies

@Mindlapse,

Mindlapse wrote:

The problem with using Descartesian affirmation of existence in the attempt to prove all existence is that Descartes' solution only applies to something with thought capacity (ie: humans). A rock, however, does not have thought. This rock's existence is not necessarily related to its absence of thought.

This is the Descartes logic-
If I think, I am.
if X then Y

This is the flawed assumption-
If a rock can think, it is.
If Z then Y

I don't understand that. Certainly it is true that if a rock thinks it exists. In fact, if a rock does the Irish jig, then it exists. Nothing can do anything unless it exists.

2 Replies

on a separate note:

I hate to bring the religion cliche to a discussion about existence, but this idea is what sets me at agnostic rather than hard atheism.

The question is: does God exist?

A definition of God is that he has the attribute of being all powerful. If God is all powerful, then he creates the paradox of being all powerful and at the same time powerless. He is able to create every possible event, and none, both simultaneously.

This leads me to believe that God (whatever force or entity or being it may be) as defined as being all powerful, is the ultimate paradox because it creates every possible paradox.

So then the God I am proposing to myself is represented by paradoxes. Whatever God is, it is by definition and necessarily responsible for good/evil, life/death, power/powerless, scarcity/abundance, positivity/negativity and et cetera for all senses of balance responsible for the existence of the universe as we know it.

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

I am agreeing with you that nothing can do anything unless it exists.

What I am saying is that you cannot attribute thinking as necessary to existence. Something CAN exist without being able to think.

Sorry for double post, but it is a completely separate subject from my previous

1 Reply

How do you determine something exists?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know