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.

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.