Existence and Reality

Metaphysics & Epistemology
1

Existence and reality are distinct realms. Existence, being the larger realm, houses reality, the smaller realm. The two realms overlap in terms of the raw physics of existence. Reality is the transformation of existence space, characterized by computable causation space with its interactions, measurements and results, into meaning space, characterized by the perishability/survivability axis of living organisms.

One of the essentials of meaning is consequence. It separates reality from existence as expressed by the difference between a change that can transformation, amplify, diminish or destroy and a change that merely terminates in an indifferent result. The absence or presence of life determines whether causation has consequences forward directed, or merely results indifferent.

On a planet sans living organisms there’s a boulder atop a hill. The planet has atmosphere, so a strong wind pushes against the boulder and sets it into motion rolling down the hill. Eventually, the boulder reaches the bottom of the hill and finally comes to rest on level ground. The resting place of the boulder is a result. Imagine now another example of the same hill and gust of strong wind with the boulder rolling down the hill and smashing together with a moving car when they intersect. It’s all the same logic and causation making the boulder roll down the hill. The big however is fact that driver of the car gets killed by the impact. That’s not a result. That’s a consequence with forward direction in memory and behavior of affected sentients. Cops show up; likewise ambulance, eventually next of kin and finally the hearse. The driver’s young children won’t be seeing father tonight, or any other night.

In general, I’m saying reality is an interpretation of physics by living organisms. The label for the interpretation is reality. Physical things exist. Living organisms and their experiences vis-á-vis physics are real. Reality is therefore a scalable meaning space numerator defined in terms of its denominator, survivability/perishability.

Throughput in the reality of sentient-mediated space is change that impacts identity as transformation, amplification, loss or destruction. This type of change in reference to sentient identity persistence coalesces as meaning.

How to Write an OP
2

They cannot be distinct, even if different.
Reality exists. Existence is real. The opposite of either is an oxymoron/contradiction.
They are inextricable.

3

Distinct = Different

4

Existence is existential. Existence is realistic. These statements are true by definition and re-enforced by custom. My new structure seeks to establish attributes unique to reality that partition it from existence.

You evaluate, “Existence houses reality such that reality has existence, but not the reverse,” as a non sequitur. Imagine a Chinese neighborhood in New York City in the nineteenth century. It contains part of New York City. It also contains Chinese restaurants. No Chinese restaurants exist outside of Chinatown. At this time it is a sub-system of New York with attributes New York City lacks.

5

Agree that UCARR is correct in distinguishing between raw physical process and meaning-laden experience. Also agree that there is a meaningful distinction between what exists and what is real.

But I would frame the distinction differently.

I don’t see existence and reality as two “realms,” one larger and one smaller. Nor do I see reality as something added to existence by life.

Rather, I distinguish between existence and reality in terms of ontological modes.

By existence, I mean that which stands forth as an object among objects — what can be located, measured, interacted with, described in third-person terms. A boulder exists. A car exists. A body exists. These are entities in the causal nexus. An existent is something we can meaningfully encounter, either by sense or by instruments.

By reality, I mean that which is not merely present as an object but is intelligible, meaningful, or truth-bearing. Reality includes, but is not reducible to, existence.

For example:

  • The law of non-contradiction does not exist as a physical object.

  • A mathematical truth does not exist in space-time.

  • The validity of an argument does not exist in a material form.

Yet these are not unreal. They are real in a different sense — they are what classical philosophy designated ‘intelligible reals’ (or intelligible ‘objects’, although I’m wary of the term ‘object’ in this context.)

In that sense, reality is not something produced by living organisms interpreting physics. Rather, the very possibility of interpreting physics presupposes an intelligible structure — logical, mathematical, normative — which does not itself belong to the domain of physical existence.

This is, I believe, more in line with the ‘classical’ form of philosophy, but I recognise it is not a schema that most contemporary philosophies will agree with.

6

I think you describe existential (physical) objects no less intelligible than abstract logical structures such as p→q.

[quote=“Wayfarer, post:5, topic:141”]
By reality, I mean that which is not merely present as an object but is intelligible, meaningful, or truth-bearing. Reality includes, but is not reducible to, existence.[/quote]

With the exception of intelligible as noted above, I agree with what you say here.

[quote=“Wayfarer, post:5, topic:141”]
The law of non-contradiction does not exist as a physical object. A mathematical truth does not exist in space-time. The validity of an argument does not exist in a material form.[/quote]

The law of non-contradiction is tied to physical objects - and to physics - by a multiplex of existential physics and realistic cognition. This is the world_brain_mind complex; it’s essential to all things sentient.

I believe the coupling of brain_mind is essential to existential physics and its sub-system, realistic cognition. The two make up a creative pairing with mutual, bi-directional constraint. Brain is the seat of agency; mind is the seat of governance. The brain instantiaties the laws and directives of the mind through its agency. The mind affords the brain with memory, logic and prudence towards survival and productivity.

With your trio of supposedly non-material chains of reasoning I suspect you commit a category error: you ascribe to non-materiality attributes that belong to the brain_mind pairing, a duo bi-directionally irreducible i.e., it can neither be stripped of material brain nor abstract mind. It is a complex of bi-conditional constraint. Existential physics can and does exist without the presence of sentience. This is directional, with emergent mind unable to exist without brain and the vastness of existential physics that produces it. The brain seems to be a mixture: it can run run the autonomic systems of the body without abstract thought, but volitional things that require abstract thought require mind.

Your trio of chains of reasoning, without the brain_mind, are purely potential existence with neither agency nor meaning.

7

False. That is why there is the very well known, and well-used refrain “distinction without a difference”.

You are plainly wrong in this claim. Onward…

Which is an impossibility. Your previous sentence says absolutely nothing:

The first is tautology, the second is literally nonsensical.

The wya you’ve worded this, no it doesn’t. It is part of NYC. This also has nothing to do with my objection. So, i assume it has gone through. Nice.

Nonsense. It is physical. Therefore, it requires physical existence. That’s what reality consists in, so we’re back to square one: talking flowery about things that aren’t at all hard to grasp. These claims are roughly speaking, empty.

8

How do you read, “Readily distinguishable by the senses,”?

You describe it as making a claim impossible. It must be saying something given your characterization of it.

Existence has its property. Reality has its property.

It’s part of NYC, but NYC isn’t part of it?

9

That is contestable. Current biology suggests that very primitive organisms, including the slime mold, which has no brain whatever, still display attributes customarily attributed to agency (problem-solving, environmental navigation etc. Watched a fascinating presentation on that last year.)

I think the only reason you feel obliged to introduce discussion of the brain, is because it gives you an apparent way to ground conceptual thought in something you consider physical. Once you introduce the brain, you think, then you can safely move into the conceptual space of physical science.

10

I’m going to stop interacting with attempts to derail the objections I’m making. This is the first one I will ignore.

This is the second.

That is impossible. NYC is bigger than Chinatown. It cannot be a part of Chinatown. Chinatown can be (and indeed, is) a part of NYC.

Note that these are my views and direct responses to your comments.

11

The heart of my thesis, expressed in my OP, puts the focus upon the mind and its memory, irreversible selections, self-binding commitments, guardianship over a metabolism that keeps its system far from equilibrium and foreknowledge that its death will be final.

The mind is what radiates sentient presence and its distinguishing meaning amidst a world of existential physics devoid of the the reality mind instantiates.

12

Given this fact, how can it be that the inhabitants of Chinatown, whilst in Chinatown, are not also in NYC?

13

This is another I shall ignore, due to being entirely irrelevant, trying to put words in my mouth, and derailing the objection.

14

These words are defined differently by different people. Your definitions are not particularly clear, and this statement is not particularly typical. I do see some (@AmadeusD) that use the two words interchangeably.

When pressed, I find that most people’s definitions of existence and reality are relations, either a relation to themself (idealism), or a relation to something else in general. This is not the intended definition, but it’s what comes out when pressed. To assert otherwise runs into contradictions.

You talk about meaning-space and living organisms, hints of biocentrism, one for of existence as a relation.

Your post is largely unchanged from the prior on old TPF, which suggests that you’re not looking for constructive feedback.

Anthropocentrism then.

I find that almost all definitions of existence/reality boil down to meaning-laden experience. Ontology seems to be only a concept. In this sense, it makes perfect sense to suggest that our universe’s existence is mind dependent, existing only because we label it thus.
There are those that argue that the universe was there long before humans came around, but that’s only true of the typical concept of the universe, not of the universe itself.

As for your 2nd statement (and examples), can anything exist that is not real?
Your quoted definition of existence (classical, not necessarily your own) seems to functionally be: Has coordinates relative to me, but this might be wrong. Goes the EM field exist? It’s not an object, or have a particular location. Does space or time exist? They’re concepts and not of mere abstractions, so I’d think an idealist would suggest their existence. They’re properties of this universe (and not of any specific object), but not sure if properties are included.

That’s the origin of the word, to stand out. Again, that’s a relation. It stands out to something, and not to other things.

I must agree with Wayfarer on this one, which allows one to interpret the physical as supervening on something not physical.

But the same can be said of a roomba, which also lacks a brain, and you’re pretty adamant that it has no agency. Nonsense. Bio is but one way to do it, just like brains are but one way to do it.

15

Bugs Bunny! Sherlock Holmes! I could go on…

Again - the distinction between artifacts and organisms, is that the latter’s organisation is intrinsic, whereas the former’s is imposed. And that is an ontological distinction.

16

You’ve said I use those terms interchangeably.
I don’t, I’ve explicitly argued against that.

Regarding the exchange with Wayf, fair enough. I cannot see it.

17

As you see in my post, I quoted you and then asked a question based upon your own words. Since you said, “Chinatown…is a part of NYC,” I can ask with sound logic how that can be without Chinatown being in NYC.

In an earlier post you said, in response to my question about NYC being a part of Chinatown, “That is impossible. NYC is bigger than Chinatown. It cannot be a part of Chinatown.”

These questions are pertinent to the core of my thesis: Reality is an interpretation of existential physics. As such, it is a sub-system nested inside of existential physics. This structural hierarchy stems from the fact that, by my estimation, interpretation doesn’t exist within existential physics. For this reason, reality contains attributes not present in existential physics. Realilty, under my structure, has a smaller scope, but a richer content.

18

Yo didn’t ask that. You asked how it is the case (ie that I suggested( inhabitants of Chinatown are not in NYC. It was a category error leading to a question wholly divorce from what I’ve said

Hence it being irrelevant.

19

Yes, and some of the central work of my thesis is to untangle this knot of denotation conflating two distinct categories.

Have you found some feedback you think refutes some or all of my thesis?

I believe existential physics is mind independent, and that life and its sentience are emergent thereof.

I’m emergent from existential physics. My abstract mind has a measure of governance over existential physics. It has a measure of agency for my abstract intentions.

If I understand “has coordinates relative to me,” then yes, there is a vast world of existing things not real.

Yes, it exists, and yes, space and time exist.

Yes, the world of existential physics stands out to sentients. Under the interpretation of sentience, physics acquires meaning in reference to an accumulating consciousness that knows it can die. Meaning has its value in reference to perishability.

I don’t know if the physical supervening on the abstract mind is consistent with the abstract mind emergent from the brain. I believe the latter. If the two phenomena are consistent with each other, then I agree with what you claim here.

I don’t think, however, that I agree with what Wayfarer claims in what you’ve quoted. I think the cognition of intelligibility always happens through the lens of cognition. To imply intelligibility exists in the realm of mind independence is to reverse engineer intelligibility from the assumption of it. Wayfarer, however, is not doing this. He is reverse engineering the possibility of intelligible structure into absolutely fundamental mind as the author of total exsitence_reality.

I reject this scheme by observing that mind without existential physics has no agency.

It’s clear to me that programmed automation borrows its agency from the human programmer.

Let me correct myself and clarify. I shouldn’t have said, “Brain is the seat of agency.” I locate agency in the physicality of all living organisms. Living organisms are the physical seat of agency. Simple life forms having agency does not contradict what I’m claiming.

20

You’re acknowledging saying, “NYC cannot be a part of Chinatown…” is a category error on your part?