Search results for query: *

Refer to posts 49 and 51.

Ah, the convenient busyness . . . in place of substance . . . sorry.

I am specifically referring to the part where you said abstract ideas don't exist and aren't real, just to remind you that you did say it. I have described a simple abstract idea that requires no cognitive mechanism to exist, and yet it does, and asked if you still maintain it's unreality.

From post #42

That's all well and good, but I'm not talking about our perceptions or our condition. I am talking about ". . . what it is." You said that abstract ideas aren't real and don't exist. I have given a simple example of an abstract and ask you: does it exist?

So you're saying that without thinkers reality is chaotic?

I have been trying to comprehend these last two sentences but with no luck. Perhaps that's because of my statement that you're responding to, so I'll try to be more clear. For example: as the moon orbits the earth it not only traces a path, but the path that it will occupy in the next second...

But what of ideas that don't require a brain or device of some kind? The complex ballistic paths of objects moving in the universe, both in the past and projected into the future, are real whether a thinker conceives them or not. The very idea of place does not require a thinker, but is none...

But PH's view allows ideas to exist.

I take it then, DBT, that you take a materialistic point of view. Do ideas not exist, then? Are they somehow unreal?

See: When the Smithsonian discovered an Ancient Egyptian Colony in the Grand Canyon

I take it from the other comments that this topic has played out before. Do you mean that existence = realness? Do you mean that the many = one? Do you mean that non-existent things are not real? What does it mean to exist? And what of those things that are existent at some point and...

Impossible universes would be mathematical constructs as much as possible universes are, just with contradictions that invalidate their actual existence, even though we could put the math on paper, like eleven dimensions or optical illusions.

Sets, yes.

Well, I tend to disbelieve in multiple universes; however, if there are, then consider the difference between "all possible universes" and "all universes." All universes would contain not just all possible universes but also all impossible universes. All possible universes could (and I think...

Don't you mean Emily?

How do you think the unthinkable? . . . With an ithberg.

I have a stepladder. . . . I never knew my real ladder.

Boy! You're just baiting, aren't you? This is really a stupid post . . . . . . and I'm not making any value judgments about you . . . . . . or remarking on your insight. The post is just dumb. You could have the intellect of a Hawking, but I'd still say it was stupid of you to chug-a-lug a...

That's a new one on me. :confused: Stochastic, maybe? In other words, indeterminate. Since the others are wholly imaginary, the real is real, neither more nor less.