In another thread a member suggested the following definition of “Existence”
Existence ≡ that which has affect: the set of all having affect: All affectance.
To Exist ≡ to possess the ability to affect, to cause effect, to cause change.
I can’t think of a better definition. Whatever is, surely has some effect.
But it got me thinking; if existence is the set of all having affect, or if existence is that which includes all things and encompasses all things, then would it be contradictory or paradoxical to say that existence is incomplete? Must we include complete in a logical definition of existence?
Are axioms complete, yes I think they are just as 1+1=2, do they reflect reality though? Now there’s the rub…
It’s best to have a loose definition based on what we know, which is fuck all so my definition of life would be to live and hope to stumble upon some self considered teleleogy. It’s completely incomplete but then such is life.
How are distinguishing “all” from “complete” in your usage?
What is the difference between having a “set of all boxes” and the “complete set of boxes”?
Could something exist that is not at this moment affecting? Hiding in a vacuum somewhere, hibernating, to be metaphorical.
I Think complete would need to be defined. One could say it is the complete set of things. But complete can imply value judgments. Perhaps the fact that there is change is due to a kind of incompleteness.
Or one could also say that any given moment in the universe is incomplete, since it is only one given moment.
Unless the set of all things, includes ‘for all time’.
It was a definition for “existence”, not “possible existence”. So future “things” would not be relevant. If it isn’t affecting at the present, it doesn’t exist at the present.
And all affecting occurs indirectly. No two points in space can actually be touching such as to not have other points between them. An affect can occur infinitely fast, but since it has an infinite number of points to affect between any two points, it still takes time to travel (specifically “the speed of light” or “speed of affect”). The total amount of points determines what we call “distance”.
Thus it isn’t actually rational to speak of things that are affecting directly versus indirectly except in a loose, common, or “for all practical purposes” sort of way.
If something is said to “exist over there”, then it is affecting “over there”. And how much affect might reach “over here” and when depends on what is between there and here. Such is true of literally all existence and in most cases is actually the common mindset as well.
From our perspective, but this might be limited. Perhaps we are ‘traveling’ through a block universe that already exists.
I am not sure about ‘distance’, that it is the limit we are told it is. I Think ‘points’ can ‘touch’ over distance. At least this fits my experience better than the assumption that this never happens.
Then you need to define what You mean when you say “already exists”.
If the government is having affect both here and there, don’t you say that the “government exists both here and there”?
If anything affects multiple points at literally the exact same time, then it exists in all of those points at the same time. And if there is absolutely no other distinction between those points, they are in fact the same point. The only thing that distinguishes one point from another is a distinction in affect either in time or manner.
Well, I would distinguish your “block universes” by saying each is a “realm of existence” or a “realm of affectance”. Each separated in its concurrent affectance.
Note that in that, they didn’t define “real” nor “already there”. And if they had, they would have merely said that “real means exists”.
And past and future are not actively affecting each other, the present, even themselves within themselves. That is why they do not “currently exist”.
They weren’t very good metaphysicists in those days (with few exceptions - Ampere, Lorentz, Coulomb,…).
Well, they call it “para-normal” because it is so very un-normal as to never be demonstrated to actually exist, else it would be “actually normal”. They don’t declare an electric field as paranormal merely because it wasn’t what most people thought of as normal. Instead they say that it actually exists, but goes unseen.
For two points to actually be two points, there must be some distinction between them in either affect or time of affect.
Understanding the universe is about constructing an ontology that is consistent, comprehensive, and relevant. What “exists” by the concepts that we choose to use in that ontology do so merely by those stipulations.
The “Block universe” concept is fine with one exception. It is irrelevant. Understanding the universe in that way offers nothing of value. It is merely the concept of predetermination. Well okay. So now why do I care?
The definition of existence as given in the OP is a ontological declared definition for the purpose of building an ontology (an understanding) that is useful in some way, “rational”. By accepting that existence is only that which actually has affect, one need not worry about things that are proposed to have no affect. And it also brings focus upon the only concern involved in a supposition of where something exists, “what does it affect most immediately if at all?” If the answer to that question is “absolutely nothing”, the rational response is to ignore it as non-existent.
Distance is defined in a similar manner, to be a useful, rational declared ontology definition. And it too resolves many potential philosophical questions as well as clarifying many Science issues concerning physics.
The typical response from most people is to think that something exists and then define an ontology around it. The problem is that without an ontology already existing in their minds, they can’t even sense that anything exists, much less know that it does. Declaring ontological elements must come before a declaration that any “thing” exists. The natural mind automatically does this subconsciously else it could not function at all.
So you begin building an ontology, “understanding of existence”, by first defining what “Existence” is to mean within that understanding; consistently, comprehensively, and relevantly. All of the other attributes typically used by the mind come into the picture afterwords.
Thus it isn’t an issue of trying to discover what it means to exist, but rather an issue of declaring what it means to exist in a rationally useful manner. Else you get into “maybe 6 is really 12 and we just haven’t discovered it yet.”
Determinism is pretty much the same. In the block universe you have choice qualia. In determinism you have choice qualia. In both you get to witness what was already determined. Of course there is a reality to choosing in some way with mere determinism rather than the block universe, but what will be will be.
I do Think distance matters and explains many processes. I Think it also is not the limit it is currently understood to be and other phenomena exist as exceptions or as not covered.
That last sentence is the critical one, otherwise I pretty much agree. Predetermism is more like the “Block Universe” concept and is an ontology that leads one into thinking that you actually have no choices and nothing ever has. That is misleading and a pointless thought. Determism more implies that everything in the past had a cause and everything in the future will be caused. That implies that you cannot change the past and if you want a particular future, give it a cause or do what it takes to cause it.
What people have been missing since day one is that understanding the universe is merely an issue of choosing a method for thinking about it much like your instinctive mind already does, merely make it more cognitive so that it can be worked with and communicated better. One can choose an understanding of the universe made of all cubes, all points, or overlapping spheres of influence, or in the case of physics, rigid bodies and forces. The restricting issues are merely; 1) Consistency 2) Comprehensiveness 3) Relevance
My Rational Metaphysics, “RM”, is a method for keeping those in mind as one chooses an ontology to construct. The components of Truth are a choice as long as they eventually lead to a rational (“relevant”) tool for the mind and heart. Using RM, I constructed “Affectance Ontology” which to date explains everything in physics as well as why it must be the way it is, the whys behind the whats.
Before one even begins to speak of what might or might not exist, one needs to define what it means “to exist”. When they argue about God’s existence, they know neither what a god is nor what existence is, yet are emphatic about the relation between the two.
Void of a properly built ontology with declared and communicated definitions, people just argue forever and get no where. I suppose that serves someone… someone else.
I’m not certain what that means.
When it comes to dimensions, both Science and philosophies tend to ignore or steer away from a proper understanding of the infinities. Science got where it is merely by accepting calculus, which deals with one concern of the infinities (the relationships between infinitesimals). It just needs to accept the rest of those issues. Edwin Hewitt offered a lot in that regard, but is pretty much ignored. Affectance Ontology employs all of those so as to ensure comprehensiveness.
The real issue isn’t whether “existence IS complete”, but rather whether your ontology CAN BE complete.
I mean: if the future hasn’t come to pass yet, can we still consider existence to be complete?
If we say at time t, existence includes all things but is not complete (it does not contain the future) does that make sense? Is it rationally coherent or acceptable?
I’ve heard of time being viewed as a dimension which I think would solve this problem. Because the future, past and present are already in existence, nothing is coming in or going out of existence. I think this would rationally further entail that existence always was and always will be. If not this, then logically it suggests that existence came from nothingness, or that it is hypothetically possible for it to go into nothingness and that seems hugely paradoxical.
Whilst it is the case that Existence ≡ that which has affect: the set of all having affect: All affectance. Should this not necessarily include time within it? All affectance past present future.
A) So you are talking about “possible existence” and/or “existence to be”, not current actual existence.
B) Time is a measurement, not an property or existence (specifically, the measure of change).
C) We distinguish past and future from present by the fact that it does not currently exist.
D) If “existence” is to include all possible existence, then obviously it would already be complete because it is impossible to have anything left out, by that very definitional stipulation.
The idea of a Block Universe is conflating the very concept of “being there”. Where is the “there” being referred to? “In the future”? That future that “only exists in the future”, not now? The “there” being referred to doesn’t exist.
Sure, but you would be predetermined to do this. I don’t read an extra message into Doris Day’s French. The choosing will be determined. It doesn’t mean, give up, your choices will make no difference. But the future is set, we just don’t know what it is. Some people might find that upsetting and give up in some or all ways. Others find no reason non to strive for what they want and this sets up the future that was going to be just as much as the other group’s reaction to determinism does.
Distance affects many phenomena. I just don’t Think it affects all of them. I Think there is some action at a distance. That this is true does not mean that all actions work without media and through a series of effects.
Wow my irony meter just exploded, did someone say something so ironic it created an irony singularity because I am getting infinite symbols on my meter across the board.
I thnk distance affects distance over time. I don’t think that basically saying what everyone else does and then ignoring everyone who disagrees with you is a valid differential of dx/james.
This is the thing I’m not sure about. In order to to be logically coherent, we have to assume that existence will always be and has always been. If we reject this, then we are faced with the problem of something coming into existence from non-existence or existence going into nothingness/non-existence. Both these propositions are paradoxical as nothing can come in or go out of existence. There is nothing bridging existence and non-existence.
As far as I can see, this leaves us with only one coherent option: Acknowledge time as a dimension and acknowledge that this dimension is infinite. If we reject it as a dimension, we are faced with one of Kant’s antinomies regarding infinite time (infinity cannot, by definition, be completed by successive finite additions). So if the future is not in existence, then this logically implies that time is not infinite and this takes us to a more damning paradox.
But if we accept it as a dimension, then there are no paradoxes regarding time. This entails that the past, the future and the present, are all in existence. At what point in time or space a subject is within existence, does not take away from existence including the past, present and future in relation to that subject and existence always being/existing.
Would this not lead to the above above paradox?
Yes, I think so as well. If we define existence as that which encompasses all possible worlds or that which encompasses all things, then we have no paradox in definition, right? What other definition is possible?
That’s what I’m getting at. I think if this is acknowledged (which appears to resemble a theory in physics that states: all possibilities exist) then we have no paradoxes at all. Anything other than this, appears to lead to a load of paradoxes that lead the likes of Kant and Hume to reject the absoluteness of reason.
