What does it mean for something to be "logically possible"?

[fast]

Anytime sometimes says, "exists as," you should immediately be on guard that there is a very high likelyhood that something is amiss.

Show

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/animalculism : The theory that the embryo exists as a preformed entity in the spermatozoon

You need to bust them for slacking.

To say of something that it's imaginary is to deny that it exists--it isn't to assert that something exists and that it located in the imagination.

Tell that to my hallucinations.

In analogy, if I say nothing is in the drawer, you don't open up an empty drawer and exclaim that you can't find this nothing I speak of that's in the drawer.

You're equivocating nothing. Spacetime exists in the drawer.

Why? Because "nothing" doesn't name anything--it's a denial term;

It's a positive term meaning the absence of anything. A framework that causes universes to pop into existence is not nothing, it's something.


I'm not satisfied with your argument that existence is not a property. I definitely don't think it's funny to say that thoughts are non-existent because they are imaginary.

I've not said that thoughts are nonexistent. They most certainly do exist. Concepts exist as well. What don't always exist is what our thoughts are thoughts of and what our concepts are concepts of. If I have a concept of a unicorn, then the concept (the mental concept itself) does exist. What doesn't exist is what the concept is a concept of, namely a unicorn. I have thoughts of building a ladder made out of gold. The thought exists, but what the thought is a thought of doesn't exist. I have the notion that there's a hurricane in the Atlantic. What the notion is a notion of (in this instance, a hurricane in the atlantic) does exist.

If you have an hallucination, then sure, there is something that exists, namely an hallucination, but there is nothing that instantiates the object of the hallucination; hence, what the hallucination is an hallucination of doesn't exist.

As to "exists as," I'm not saying never. There's a common philosophical mistake where when something doesn't exist that overzealous philosophizing leads them to say the things exist as (exist as) some other form.

Gotta run for now

 

[Kharakov]

The concept of a 3d burning ship fractal exists in the mind of some people.

The 3d burning ship fractal exists as a concept in the mind of some people.


Am I missing something? I parse them the same.

A thought of a kind statement exists in the mind of some people.

A kind statement exists as a thought in the mind of some people.



Don't run too fast!

 

[fast]

The concept of a 3d burning ship fractal exists in the mind of some people.

The 3d burning ship fractal exists as a concept in the mind of some people.

Am I missing something? I parse them the same.

The subject isn't the same for both.
There's an added level of complexity in your example that we need not struggle with at this juncture, so let me change the example.

A: a pen
B: a concept of a pen

C: a unicorn
D: a concept of a unicorn

There is a fundamental difference between A and B. At the very least, the subject matter is strikingly distinct. I can pick up and hold A, but I cannot pick up and hold B. I can write with A, but I cannot write with B. I can find A in stores, but never will you find B in stores.

Now, you talk about parsing. If I were to say my "pen concept is ..." then that is an alternative parsing; clearly, that substitutes for my "concept of a pen." Either way, I wouldn't be talking about A but instead B.

If I have a concept, you might be interested in what I have a concept of, but never confuse the one for the other; that's a common mistake. My concept is dependent on the existence of my brain. If you pick up a pen, then the existence of what you picked up doesn't depend on my brain. We cannot escape that there's a distinction between A and B.

Before I move onto C and D, let's do some magic. In a special room, both concepts and what concepts are concepts of are out in the open for all to see. All concepts (they look like little blobs) should be placed on the left side of the room (to the left when facing inward, if ya like). All non concepts are to the right. Whether something exists or not need not matter. In this magical room, everything I say exists does in fact exist. We can drop some pixie dust later that dissipates all and only that which doesn't exist.

A: a pen. What side of the room is it on? Concepts are to the left, and a pen isn't a concept. There are concepts of pens (or pen concepts if you want an alternative parsing) but they're all on the left side of the room. That's where they belong, on the left. A (a pen) is on the right.

B: a concept of a pen. What side of the room is it on? Not the damn pen! We know where it's at. The pen is on the right. We just went through that. Where is the concept (not what the concept is a concept of)? It's where all the other concepts are: on the left side of this wonderful magical room.

C: yes, moving on (finally) to C.
Where the hell are the unicorns? Well, recall, in this magical room, everything exists (that I say exists, so no one finds a cute way of destroying my plan). Ooh, looky there, an equine with a horn, standing over on the right side of the room talking to some half drunk dragon.

Note, unicorns are not animals, but that's only because (only because) a thing that does not exist cannot be an animal, but, and this is a very important point, if unicorns did exist, and if they existed in the very form we'd expect them to (and they're depicted as being animals) they would exist as animals. Why do you think we deny that there are unicorns? Because they haven't been spotted, for one. We've looked, and guess where we look? Not in the mind. We look in what we describe as the external world--you know, where horses and cats and dogs and aard varks roam.

D: concept of a unicorn.
Instead of telling you that this is on the left side of the room, let's talk about another crazy kind of magic. The kind that philosophers keep trying. Remember that pixie dust I mentioned earlier? When I release it, the room will remain magical such that concepts will still be on the left and everything else will be on the right; however, only things that exist will remain.

Wait for it; wait for it
*pickie dust released*

The unicorns are gone! No, they didn't go cozy up with the concepts of unicorns that are still on the left side of the room. That needs to sink in for a very long time. Unicorns are not concepts in the mind. Unicorn concepts are concepts in the mind.

I could have incorporated your fractal example in, but I'd need a taller building

A concept of a concept is a concept, but it's metaconcept, and we all now know what side of the room concepts are on, even if we're not rightly sure which floor each are being held.

 

[untermensche]

If data didn't exist it couldn't be collected or observed.

Something is only data WHEN it is observed.

If something is not observed it is not data. Even if it exists.

It is only potential data.

Data implies humans have observed it.

The questions are: What are the limits of the human capacity to observe? And are there things that exist that humans are incapable of observing?

Or is the human capacity to observe miraculous and all encompassing?

 

[untermensche]

It's like they lack the ability to parse simple logic: nothing begets nothing, so there was never nothing.

1) nothing does not exist (the concept of nothing does, but it is not nothing)
2) things that do not exist do not have properties
3) the ability to cause something to exist is a property
4) existing is a property
5) nothing has no properties, so could not have caused something to exist, and could not have changed into something that exists (otherwise it was something with the property of being able change into something that exists, which means it already existed)

Conclusion? Do you need more premises? Do you understand any of the words you've been exposed to? Beep?

I didn't say there were no arguments to support your side of this paradox. That's what makes it a paradox. Both sides are "logically" supported.

There are also "logical" arguments to show an infinite past is impossible. Time has direction. If there is no beginning to time there is no point to move from. No way for there to be direction.

The arguments go on to infinity. And you can't surmount any of them. All you can do is wail that arguments on the other side should take precedence for some reason. You have a prejudice and you want it to count for something.

Existence is a paradox. Unexplained and unexplainable.

Nothing can change that.

 

[untermensche]

Existence isn't a property. To say of something that it exists is to say of something that it has properties, yes, but existence itself is not a property. For instance, a chair has properties, but existence isn't one of them.

Really? I thought the fact that a chair exists is a property of the chair. An imaginary thing might exist as a thought/concept, but the chair I am sitting on actually exists. It has the property of existing. Nothing doesn't have the property of existing, but the concept of nothing has the property of existing.

Things that exist have properties.

To exist means to have some kind of property.

But existence is not a property.

 

[fast]

Really? I thought the fact that a chair exists is a property of the chair. An imaginary thing might exist as a thought/concept, but the chair I am sitting on actually exists. It has the property of existing. Nothing doesn't have the property of existing, but the concept of nothing has the property of existing.

Things that exist have properties.

To exist means to have some kind of property.

But existence is not a property.

I agree with everything you said!

Curiously, though, what do you think about dinosaurs, like the T-Rex?

We had someone that argued that extinct animals have properties and therefore exist. People might argue HAD properties, but there's some tenseless way to express it.

 

[Kharakov]

The concept of a 3d burning ship fractal exists in the mind of some people.

The 3d burning ship fractal exists as a concept in the mind of some people.

Am I missing something? I parse them the same.

The subject isn't the same for both.

Ok. I was thinking that the 3d burning ship fractal is a concept either way (it doesn't/can't have physical existence according to the physical laws I'm aware of).

It's a concept, that exists as a concept. It's a bit like Pi (the transcendental number and all it's infinite discrete digits, not the ratio).

If you look at the second set of statements too, it might highlight that I was thinking of concepts that exist.

Sorry about the lack of clarity.

 

[Kharakov]

It's like they lack the ability to parse simple logic: nothing begets nothing, so there was never nothing.

1) nothing does not exist (the concept of nothing does, but it is not nothing)
2) things that do not exist do not have properties
3) the ability to cause something to exist is a property
4) existing is a property
5) nothing has no properties, so could not have caused something to exist, and could not have changed into something that exists (otherwise it was something with the property of being able change into something that exists, which means it already existed)

Conclusion? Do you need more premises? Do you understand any of the words you've been exposed to? Beep?

I didn't say there were no arguments to support your side of this paradox. That's what makes it a paradox. Both sides are "logically" supported.

There isn't a paradox.

There was always something, because if there wasn't something (at the very least something that could create universes), there wouldn't be anything now. Our existence is proof that something has always existed in some form or another.

 

[fromderinside]

If something is not observed it is not data. Even if it exists.

It is only potential data.

Data implies humans have observed it.

Existence can be defined as being without need for a mind.
Existence is!

Unless everything is from another mind, matter and it's properties exist.
Data is an attribute of properties of matter.
Ergo data exists


Your questions are derivative. Without existence there is no human capacity nor any derivatives thereof.

I take that back. You try to go from bad presumption to false cliff from which to fall.

 

[fast]

Unless everything is from another mind, matter and it's properties exist.
Data is an attribute of properties of matter.
Ergo data exists

He isn't saying that matter isn't a necessary condition of data but rather that it's not a sufficient condition of data.

Take ice as an example. Water isn't ice until it's frozen. He's arguing that matter isn't data until it's observed.

 

[untermensche]

Existence can be defined as being without need for a mind.

Defined by what?

 

[untermensche]

I didn't say there were no arguments to support your side of this paradox. That's what makes it a paradox. Both sides are "logically" supported.

There isn't a paradox.

There was always something, because if there wasn't something (at the very least something that could create universes), there wouldn't be anything now. Our existence is proof that something has always existed in some form or another.

That is merely one side of the paradox.

There could not have always been something.

How did it get there?

Merely saying "it always was" is religious gibberish. Dismissed as irrational nonsense with the wave of a hand.

You are fixated on one side of a two sided paradox.

You need to open your eyes and see where you are.

 

[Kharakov]

There isn't a paradox.

There was always something, because if there wasn't something (at the very least something that could create universes), there wouldn't be anything now. Our existence is proof that something has always existed in some form or another.

That is merely one side of the paradox. There could not have always been something.

Nothing begets nothing. It cannot change into something. Therefore something has always existed, because something exists now. There is no paradox. In fact, I doubt you're using the term paradox correctly... is unter?

How did it get there?

Something was always around, changing. Eventually, some of the things it changed into persisted. Then other stuff happened. Then you happened, unfortunately. But until you happened, nobody had a problem understanding that something always existed, that if nothing existed, it would never cause something to exist.

If nothing existed to change into something else, we wouldn't be here. At no point in the history of eternal being has nothing existed. I don't even know if it's possible that it can exist.


Wow, what if unter is a persistent object that cannot comprehend eternity... for another 1000 page thread.

 

[beero1000]

I like the segue from "you're wrong, I'm right" to "it's a paradox". Progress?

 

[untermensche]

That is merely one side of the paradox. There could not have always been something.

Nothing begets nothing. It cannot change into something. Therefore something has always existed, because something exists now. There is no paradox. In fact, I doubt you're using the term paradox correctly... is unter?

I am not going to claim I can solve this side of the paradox.

One side is: Something cannot arise from nothing.

The other side is: It is impossible for there to be a present moment if the moments in the past are endless. If the moments in the past are not endless then there was a beginning to existence. And there are many many other arguments.

Two sides.

Not one.

And neither side negates the other. They both stand unassailable.

The paradox of existence.

Anybody who thinks they have a handle on it is fooling themselves. Anybody who doesn't see it as total absurdity is fooling themselves.

No sense can be made of it.

 

[Kharakov]

Nothing begets nothing. It cannot change into something. Therefore something has always existed, because something exists now. There is no paradox. In fact, I doubt you're using the term paradox correctly... is unter?

I am not going to claim I can solve this side of the paradox.

You don't have to solve a side of a paradox, in this case. There isn't one.

One side is: Something cannot arise from nothing.

That's just true. So whatever.

The other side is: It is impossible for there to be a present moment if the moments in the past are endless.

If there never was a start to existence, then existence has always existed. It didn't start. It always was.

If there was a start (with nothing turning into something), then your argument would be correct.


Then again.. my favorite song is Dawn of Eternity:

 

[fromderinside]

Unless everything is from another mind, matter and it's properties exist.
Data is an attribute of properties of matter.
Ergo data exists

He isn't saying that matter isn't a necessary condition of data but rather that it's not a sufficient condition of data.

Take ice as an example. Water isn't ice until it's frozen. He's arguing that matter isn't data until it's observed.

I'm going to quibble here. Water is, it's state of ice is dependent on the temperature in which water exists as well the pressure in which water exists. Since factors like temperature, volume, and pressure also exist their interaction with water can provide conditions for a water state of ice. But ice exists as a property of water.

Matter is a form like ice that exists in some energy states of temperature pressure and volume at 1880 blush.

I think of data as something that applies to all energy. energy has the property data. At least it makes thermodynamic sense.

 

[fromderinside]

Existence can be defined as being without need for a mind.

Defined by what?

Presence antecedent to life for one.

 

[fast]

He isn't saying that matter isn't a necessary condition of data but rather that it's not a sufficient condition of data.

Take ice as an example. Water isn't ice until it's frozen. He's arguing that matter isn't data until it's observed.

I'm going to quibble here. Water is, it's state of ice is dependent on the temperature in which water exists as well the pressure in which water exists. Since factors like temperature, volume, and pressure also exist their interaction with water can provide conditions for a water state of ice. But ice exists as a property of water.

Matter is a form like ice that exists in some energy states of temperature pressure and volume at 1880 blush.

I think of data as something that applies to all energy. energy has the property data. At least it makes thermodynamic sense.

Eh, it was an example to illustrate a point. Defeat the point, not the example.

Here's another example: evidence. Anything can be used as evidence when it's used to support a claim, but facts not being used to support any claims isn't evidence. For instance, as I happenchance to look at a flower that has petals, the petals are not evidence. When you come along and proclaim that it is evidence but have no claim to support with it, it's not evidence until you later decide to use those facts to support some claim.