Existence and Reality

Metaphysics & Epistemology
41

Ontology is the philosophy of existence, so this is more definitional than fundamental. Since it is quite possible that existence is found well up the list of Supervenience, it is hardly fundamental.

It is the structural ground out of which differentiation emerges via asymmetry.

No, I can tell a horse from a pig (differentiation) due to several traits, none of which are ‘existence’, which is presumably the same between the two.

Cognitive modeling is a complex of physical agents (sensory systems, brain) and emergent mind. This complex models things like physical rocks. It doesn’t bestow physicality upon the rock.

Agree, but it might bestow existence upon the rock, depending on one’s definition of existence. My definition typically doesn’t, but it’s still a relational one. There are empirical tests for relations. There’s no empirical test for objective existence. Many disagree with this claim, but only by holding circular premises that I don’t.

You did, post 28. Pretty much if I don’t put on a name, I’ve used '> ’ notation, meaning a continuation of the quote prior.

I read it as saying, “A rock is detected by someone’s eyes and the brain constructs an image of the rock.” This is perception, not supervenience.

That’s more reasonable. What the earlier quote said was that it supervened on the senses, suggesting rocks aren’t physical until sensed.

It is unclear if Middle Earth has physics at all. It’s kind of like our physics, but with magic, meaning ‘not really like ours’. I don’t know what you mean by ‘existential physics’ as being distinct from other kinds of physics.

How do you explain your possession of concepts if their signifiers have no existence in relation to you?

Don’t follow this at all. I have concepts because I think of them. I imagine apples because I experience them. In a way I believe that apples exist because I experience them, but that’s tainted with my knowledge that my concept of an apple bears little resemblance to its actual nature. It’s not a problem since its actual nature is irrelevant to its pragmatic significance to me. Regardless, it exists relative to me, not because I perceive it or know about it, but because I’ve interacted (at all) with it.

Yes, I noticed that I messed up there. Still getting used to this new site.

Cantor’s uncountable reals aren’t non-computable or undefinable or otherwise weird. They’re just ordinary reals like all the other reals.

While I was talking about the reals, yes, I was grouping them into groups of computable or not. Most of Cantor’s reals (are his any different than just ‘the set of real numbers’?) are not computable or expressible in any way. So I disagree with your statement. I don’t think Cantor got into this distinction. He was just proving that the reals couldn’t be counted.

My point, which you seem to have totally missed, is that the list of reals that can be expressed (accessed by humans in any form) are countable, and thus are an infinitesimal subset of the total set of reals.

You’re correct that Cantor’s number is on our countable list of computable numbers. I think you can derive a paradox from this fact, quite similar to Berry’s paradox.

42

Can you show me with a concrete example an empirical test that determines that something exists objectively?

43

Not sure if you read my posts because the answer was already there.
Secondly, if you want me to see that you’ve replied to me, you need to mention me at least once, else I get no notification of your post.

. .

One could force the issue with a postulate such as [objective] existence preceding predication, in which case everything exists (even impossible things, since those things have the property of being impossible). If everything exists, there would be no distinction between them and something nonexistent, rendering such existence meaningless.

44

Consider: “Existence is the physical space in which things can be.” What do you think?

I erred in making this statement. I should’ve written, "Asymmetry is the ground of differentiation that makes existence possible. Existence, in turn, is the physical space in which things can be.

I see that your definition of existence involves something relational. Can you explain what this means?

45

For my part, this doesn’t quite make sense. “existence” is an attribute, not an object or place.

46

‘Physical’ doesn’t seem to have any kind of objective definition. It can’t reference the sort of physical of this universe, else it would be a relation to this universe. Your definition suggests that the contents of an empty jar exists, but the jar does not. Weird.

It is treated as that, yes, but formally there are those that suggest otherwise, especially those that hold to the principle that existence precedes predication. If it’s an attribute, it’s a predicate.
I’m all for what you suggest. I think said principle causes all sorts of contradictions, so I’m no fan of it.

Examples of existence definitions, all of which are relations:

  • It exists if I conceive of it. This is a crude form of idealism. Sherlock Holmes exists (per Wayfarer) but is not real, being real having a different definition.
  • It exists if it is part of this universe, with universe probably being defined as the observable universe. A T-rex exists. Sherlock does not.
  • It exists if it is present simultaneously with me. Elephants exist but a T-rex does not.

Those are mind dependent due to the bolded text, both relating to humans, the latter two relating also to our universe.

For more mind-independent relations, X exists relative to Y if X is part of the causal history of Y. This definition only works in causal structures, but is also pretty much the one I like to use.

47

The subatomic structure of a material object consists of localized field excitations. This is the quantum field theory of mass_energy. I embrace this theory as the experimentally verified description of the material objects we encounter daily.

Existence is therefore not a description of mass_energy localized as material objects. It’s the dynamical manifold from which measurable structures (mass_energy as material objects) emerge.

Existence is therefore not a description because it is not within the concept of description. It stands outside of and logically and temporally prior to mass_energy as material objects. It’s the dynamical manifold that makes material objects possible.

48

See my latest post. It responds to both AmadeusD and noAxoims.

49

Yes. Both of us were mentioned in that post.

Some comments about that last line.
‘therefore’ implies that the conclusion in any way follows from the statement. It doesn’t, being a non-sequitur.
No mention in the preceding paragraph about QFT is there mention of existence or description, or any hint of fields consisting or not consisting of descriptions.
So instead, perhaps you should lead with your statement of existence being mind independent. From that, your conclusion actually does follow since descriptions are mental constructs (or have mental origins), and thus existence, being mind independent, cannot be a description of anything, mass-energy or otherwise.

It’s the dynamical manifold from which measurable structures (mass_energy as material objects) emerge.

This rather poetic statement doesn’t really leave me with anything practical. I cannot tell from these words if you think a unicorn exists or not, and how said unicorn satisfies your condition or not. You say ‘measurable’, but that word hasn’t been much defined here, especially if measuring isn’t a deliberate act of some observer, making this a mind-dependent definition.

I gave one example of a mind-independent definition of existence above, and it appropriately made no mention of any observer or actions by one.

Plato suggests that numbers exist (platonic existence), but numbers didn’t really pass my example definition. They might exist via something like existential quantification, but I don’t think Plato had that in mind.

50

The dynamical manifold refers to the 4D manifold described by Einstein’s GR. Einstein has field equations that describe what happens in the manifold in four dimensions. I think the things we encounter every day are mind independent.

51

First of all, that 4D spacetime manifold is not ‘dynamical’ since it isn’t contained by time and thus doesn’t change. You’re perhaps thinking of a 3D spatial manifold which does change.

Secondly, a definition of existence that makes reference to [the universe I find myself in] is a reference to humans and what they perceive. It’s mind dependent definition. It is a rather persistent logical fallacy that humans posit that sans themselves, this particular universe would still be preferred.

52

You’re right that the 4D manifold doesn’t change. It structures the changes we observe as motion. Also, the abstract laws describe the structure that determines which of the motions mathematically possible actually occur.

As presented in the statement above, the 4D manifold, with its spacetime structure in four dimensions (three spatial, one temporal), determines what physical dynamism is possible within spacetime as measured mathematically, and the attendant invariant laws govern which of the possible spacetime dynamics are allowed into existence. All of this is mind independent.

Existence is an emergent field of actualized dynamical physics. It arises from asymmetry, difference, invariance bi-conditional with probability and ordered change. Existence is mind independent. It has causal chains dynamical within light cones. The permanent mood of existence is indifference.

When sentients emerge from the existential physics of existence, the mind independent field of spacetime dynamics, they experience existence as reality which they assess in terms of their project to persist. The general meaning of reality arises from the interface between existence and the perishable sentient seeking to persist.

53

This seems to be primarily a linguistic objection based on common usage. While in everyday speech “real” and “existent” are often treated as synonyms, it is common in philosophy to define terms more precisely when building a conceptual framework.

I would generally agree with OP that reality can be understood as a subset of existence, though I would define the relationship differently. In my view, existence refers to anything capable of interacting or being interacted with, while reality refers to things actively participating in interactions with more than themselves. Interaction here does not require agency, only relation.

For example, consider fire. Fire is an emergent process produced by the interaction of fuel, oxygen, and heat. If one of these conditions is absent, the fire does not occur. However, the process still exists as a potential state given the correct conditions. When those conditions are met, the process enters reality as an active interaction.

Another useful example is hallucination. The neurological process that produces a hallucination is real because it involves measurable interactions within the brain. However, the object perceived in the hallucination is not real because it cannot interact with anything beyond the internal representation. The illusion exists as a mental construct but does not participate in the wider interaction network of reality.

Where I would disagree with OP is the claim that reality requires interpretation by living organisms. Living beings certainly generate meaning from events, but their interpretation is not what makes those events real. Reality consists of interactions whether or not they are observed.

The familiar thought experiment of a tree falling in the woods illustrates this point. Even without observers, the event involves numerous interactions: soil displacement, root disturbance, changes in light exposure, effects on insects or animals, and the release of carbon and oxygen into the atmosphere. These interactions occur independently of interpretation.

In other words, life may differentiate or interpret reality, but it does not create it. Reality is constituted by interactions themselves rather than by the meaning organisms derive from them.

54

This is an interpretation.

This is an interpretation.

If you aren’t a pan-psychist, then you know existing things sans sentience cannot know, interpret and value. Conversely, sentient beings can scarcely refrain from doing same perpetually.

Reality is the field wherein subjectivity and objectivity come face-to-face. However, in actuality, there is only one face, the face of the subject. Existing things interacting are only objects making contact to no consequence of value scaled to a future outcome that spells either survival or death. When there are only objects and no subjects, reality only resides in the minds of subjects now departed from their face off with these lifeless objects.

Life is so radiant it gives the tincture of vitality to clouds who have faces and winds that whisper.

Your life has value beyond what math can scale concretely. Existential physics is more than covered by math which abounds with math forms logically sound but not instantiated into physics.

As for infinite values, such as life, math can only reason with them symbolically.

Yes, reality is firmly established within the human lexicon. It’s not going anywhere. You, however, should periodically be reminded that sentient radiance is very special and limited.