The question posed in this thread is: What does it mean “to exist”?
Wasn’t the definition offered by Dr. Katz, in End Note 4, of A Unified Theory of Ethics - myqol.com/wadeharvey/A%20UNI … ETHICS.pdf - one that you could find to be adequate? He defined it in terms of the frame of reference known as Formal Axiology; he also threw in a definition of what it means to be “real.” The definitions assumed a prior familiarity with Dr. Hartman’s three basic dimensions of value: Systemic, Extrinsic, and Intrinsic.
Existence =df.= Extrinsic Being - that is, the degree of being (substantiality) that ranges from finite to countable as to the number of properties being attributed to something phe by the one claiming that something exists. [It helps to be acquainted with Phenomenology here, which is an approach that concentrates on the study of consciousness and the objects of direct experience.] {[size=89]“Being” is taken here as a primitive term - the assumption made is that you have some sense of it, that the notion makes some sense to you; and existence is seen here as a mode of being. If you have eliminated “to be” from your vocabulary, then you will need to invoke some other primitive - as the genus for which ‘existence’ is the species.[/size]}
Reality =df.= Intrinsic Being - that is, when we call something “real” we are investing it with an uncountable number of properties, thus necessitating that we behold it as a gestalt.
And measuring the degree of substance we assign to things and situations: … S: to consist (as a construct of the mind); E: to exist. I: to persist (as we are wont to regard our “realities” …which we have projected upon the universe, in our grandiose fantasies that we know anything for sure …since we are so tiny relative to the awesome breadth and depth of the universe. Many tend to believe that their 'realities have persistence. So we have here presented three degrees (or dimensions) of substance … if the claim is ever made by someone that something has some substance to it: to consist; to exist; and to persist.
So my question, if I was not clear, is whether laws, rules, patterns exist - a bit like the question of whether math exists out there - since these are not things and if they affect, they affect in a different what then things do?
Affectance fits well in the world of things, this affecting that.
But the qualities/rules of existence seem more like being. Their nature certain necessitates that affecting and things are a certain way, but it seems odd to me to speak of laws as affecting something, rather than being part of the being of the context.
How do you view the existence/affectance of laws, rules, patterns, mathematical relationships, constants?
Light has different color because it has a different shape. the waveforms are compressed. When an object has a different color it is said to be seperate from other objects. Its atoms have a different density and move freely.
So there are two different types of existence -
In the immediate, moment - Absolute Existence
Objects appear in our consciousness…they have different colors and shapes. We arbitrarily define them as seperate, but as a whole mesh of objects, the whole mesh certainly exists. You cannot debate the existence of the soup, the mesh, but you can debate whether or not the contents of the soup are seperate from each other. The soup exists, that is the absolute. The seperation is defined by somewhat arbitrary parameters.
If we imagine something, it also is Absolute Existence.
The second type of existence is Emperical Existence
This is a faith type based of existence…For example if we drop a can down the grand canyon, we have the faith that it fell down to the bottom and landed somewhere, even thought it momentarily popped out of conscious existence. We assume and give faith to the laws of physics, and assume that when we get to the bottom of the cliff either the can or some metal fragments will be down there somewhere. So when objects are out of conscious perception they are said to “exist” empirically (even though they don’t really exist we just assume they do.) The only way it would exist without us travelling to the bottom of the cliff, is if we travelled to the bottom of the cliff in our minds and imagined a similar looking can, then a similar looking can would exist.
That seems way, way, too complicated in contrast to: “Existence is that which has affect”.
Finally, someone rises above the muck and mire to ask the first rational clarifying question.
As it turns out, merely for sake of our chosen ontological construct, there are two “realms of existence” wherein anything that exists affects only other existence within its own realm.
A straight line affects what a square is. A curve affects what a circle is. But neither a circle nor a square can exist in, or affect any physical entity whatsoever. People often speak of an idea that has affected or influenced them. That is a legitimate manner of speech. But we know that it isn’t the idea that created physical effect, but rather a variety of chemicals and impulses in their brain which happened to have been in the pattern of the idea. It wasn’t the pattern of the idea, but rather the physical structure of the pattern that has physical influence.
I am not saying that speech should change in order to better reflect the deeper truth, but rather that philosophers should not be confused by common speech mannerisms.
Conceptual Realm of Existence - divine (ideas, angles, concepts, geometric forms, laws, ideologies,…) Physical Realm of Existence - mortal (materials, people’s bodies, “Earth, wind, fire, and water”,…)
The two realms isolated, each merely flirting with the notion of the other. Until there patterns match, neither can exist in the other. The structure of thought and the religions has held this view for thousands of years.
That is actually a good point. In constructing an ontology, one might consider allowing for a third realm, the realm of Perception.
Often today social propaganda suggests that reality is only what one thinks it is (so as to hide manipulation of what one thinks). But the objective reality is that perception forms a construct within thought that is neither physically real nor divinely accurate. The perceived reality is a cartoon fantasy and illusion.
Hmm… That is a new thought for me … a Third Realm of Existence ≡ the Perceived
Fore it is within that realm the motivation of Man is formed: The Perception of Hope and Threat, PHT that guides ALL consciousness - a very, very significant issue to life.
since my views adhere to the Fractal Universe Theory, which says that each fractal contains patterns of the same whole, although this whole remains unfathomable, Reality is perception. in a diagram, The Perceived would represent the intersection of two circles. Science will make huge leaps forward when the Perceived, which also could be called Intuition, will be recognized as a Prime Cause. In other words, when academia will endorse the metaphysical aspect of any research.
so when I read in the OP “The Rational Foundation of Metaphysics”, that doesnt mean anything.
Here we see again, blind faith rearing its head again. The devotee must bind itself to one belief system or another, in this case it is some kind of Fractal theory or something more compatible with higher “evolved” minds.
She, like all good clowns and gurus, mixes it with a bit of truth and rationality to make it seem legitmate.
blind faith ? No, every MAJOR discovery occurs when the researcher is deeply connected to his Intuition which allows him/her to come up with a that bit of information/data that can revolutionize any theory.
Empiricism favors academia keeping researchers within the same paradigm (herd mentality) which eventually collapses. We have seen this over and over. Go to my thread "competition ethical? " and look for my video “the revolution of the mind”.
Please try to disprove that Unknown does not rule the Known, then you may get a point. Intuition is always connected to the Unknown, this hidden part of the iceberg.
People who say that metaphysics is rational, are sitting on the top of the iceberg and as they further investigate, they begin to dig deeper and deeper, first rationally… but as digging, they notice that the question marks get bigger.
Me a guru for saying that the Whole/God is Unfathomable. wowowow. Here is an example that The Perceived is Reality.
I am a thinker who endorses the merging the physical and metaphysical. And the funny thing, is that both sides of the fence regard me as either irrational/having blind faith, which makes me kinda smile.
Moreover, the Fractal and Holographic Universe Theories, and that of the Holographic Brain have been out there for quite some time. I didnt come up with them. Maybe you should investigate them first before calling me a guru. Another example that The Perceived is Reality.
Please tell me how the universe is a fractal. When I look outside, I dont see such a thing. Such a concept seems even more ridiculous than many religious texts.
As for God, God is quite fathomable if you dont look at it from a dogmatic point of view.
Yes, James, you and others here can go back and forth using “the tools of philosophy” in order to establish scholastically/academically/analytically whether or not this “proposition” is “epistemologically sound”. And all I can do then is to keep pointing out how seemingly irrelevant whatever the “definitional logic” might possibly be here is pertaining to that which would seem to be another of the fundamental pursuits of philosophy: discovering “how one ought to live” with respect to the existential relationships most important to me.
I keep asking you [and other objectivists] to connect the dots between these two frames of mind and you keep avoiding it.
Read this again:
Truth is a matter of a properly defined ontology such that the assembled ontology exactly describes the physical reality. Science merely compares the two when a hypothesis is presented that allows for such comparison.
How on earth is this connected to the “metaphysical existence” of conflicting human behaviors when different folks answer the question “how ought I to live?” in ways that have made human history [to date] a bloody hell? Or is that completely irrelevant to the OP?
Indeed:
Look around at the world we live in. Follow the “human condition” on the news. Then you tell me: are the relationships that I speak of here more or less relevant to the lives that we live than the relationships you speak of.
You can’t/won’t/don’t even tell us how the lives that we live are pertinent to the manner in which you define existence “metaphysically”.
And while there are certainly those “serious philosophers” who don’t find this strange at all, I find it very strange indeed.
if God is fathomable in your Perceived Reality, he surely is NOT in mine because the picture I have of the Universe is encompassing everything because (mathematical) patterns go to the Infinite. Moreover what you call blind faith is really deriving from pure mathematics/geometry. Or is endorsing cosmic math dogmatic?
Seems like a bunch of disconneted henids, random lego blocks scattered on the floor that feel beautiful to you. Maybe they are beautiful, but why make a religion out of it. There are bigger and better things.
i also found that the universe looks like a brain. You know what that lead me to believe? That the universe might potentially be a holder for consciousness. However, I never thought it had anything to do with fractals. The fractal book I wrote many moons ago had to do with a metaphor for human behavoir and searching for meaning…it was never meant to be actually used as a model for the actual universe.
so, because a seashell loosely resembles the galaxy, it just means that the galaxy is surrounded in a liquid, because seashells are also surrounded in a liquid. Liquids form vortexes, such as magnets. Thus, aether is real, which is provable. newtonian physics are actually highly dense liquid physics.
So, aether/affectance is real, the rest is golden ratio religion/fractal hubris/gobbledegook/quantum discombobulation/star trek fantasy land.
you got O----> whatever you call it! there are particles and they effect one another, this is known as observation. do your affecting particles have an effect upon others or not?
I know what affect means, but to act upon with what? You just get particles which appear or are always there with a given value? You do the math; an infinity of affecting particles would be equivalent! An adjustment in one would affect the next particle/s which would affect the next ~ all would be affecting all, so they would all cancel out and be equivalent!
There is no end, therefore there is no end result. If an object affects something, that is the end result, it affecting something, eg. the process of it affecting as it appears.
There is no reason why the particles would cancel out either, your assertion makes no sense.
The particles that you keep mentioning are not actually ever touching each other. A particle is a cluster of affectance noise that is highly concentrated as the inside with extremely low concentration as the outside (a gravity/mass field). It is the affectance pulses and waves that spew between and around the concentrated noise that cause the concentrations to migrate, “move”. What you are calling “particles” are merely the center of concentrated, ultra-minuscule EMR noise, “Affectance”.
So in a sense the particles are not really affecting each other but rather they affect the field all around them and that field affects each particle.
Believing in the aether whose affectance is indeed real but which nobody can see could also be considered as faith. I have no problem with the aether though. But consequences are not causation. Do you/we know about the inner workings of aether? Provable? Of course not because if we did, we’d be all knowing, omniscient, we’d be God.
Phi, the fibonacci sequence and Pi are shaping geometry in nature/cosmos, hence its fractal design. But this displeaseS scientists and religions equally. The two will have to merge. It is only a matter of time. The geometrical design of the Universe and atoms are completely alike. That is what Plato and Pythagoras discovered, this science is thus very ancient and has been dismissed on purpose.
geometry at the cell level
Newton and einstein will be soon history. The Electric Universe Theory is taking over behind the curtain, academia knows that their final hours/days/years are approaching, and talking of dogma, you surely believe in one, sorry.
calling someone a guru for being a proponent of cosmic patterns theories, mathematics, and for saying that the Unknown/Unconscious rules the Known/Conscious (hence the importance of Intuition linking the two) is kinda ludicrous. Perceived Reality???
On the contrary, affectance is supported with pure definitional logic, undeniable, having nothing at all to do with religious or scientific presumptions or faith in what others have said they saw nor what anyone wants to believe.
I certainly do and it hardly takes being a god to understand or prove.
It displeases them for two reasons, the first of which is that it is a provably broken ontology. But even if it wasn’t provably invalid, they have far more useful ontologies with a great deal of very real experience.
To understand existence as: Extrinsic being does not seem to me to be that complicated. The claim being made is that essence, existence, and reality are modes of being. To be is to have some substance.
If one believes that something has no substance one will not say that it exists. Even a hole (which has some boundaries, such as a cavity, a hole in a sock, a depression in the ground, a pit, an intense gravity density [a black hole]) exists.
That is to say, it has a medium degree of Being - more than an essence but less than a reality. You asked for a definition. I gave you an entire Ontology.
now try to use your brain… you are asserting that particles have an affect which is naturally affecting other particles, and then that the receiving particle is not being effected? You state 1] that there is no end result, then 2] that affectance is the end result!
If instead of that nonsense, one particle effects another and hence they all have polarity, ergo; particles >relate<, have relative positions!
There does not exist a field of affecting particles, it makes no sense at all.
Logic is based on all knowing data processed at the time of the inquiry. New theories always defy logic in the beginning, hence the mental resistance to them. Metaphysics cannot be investigated with logic, as we are subjected to immutable natural laws. Any train of thoughts that doesnt include them, will be proven wrong on due time, no matter how logic them seem to be.
