4 ms·

>many more things in existence are non-physical than physical. What does non-physical existence even mean? This isn't an idle question. Surely we know what phy

>many more things in existence are non-physical than physical. What does non-physical existence even mean? This isn't an idle question. Surely we know what physical existence is: some capacity to interact; be causally affected or causally affect other physical things. This definition is a bit circular in some sense, but it has closure which is important. The word "exist" has a foundational importance in all of human intellectual activity. What is the analogous notion of non-physical existence that supports it sharing this term? >If consciousness itself were something on the same order as an idea, then it would lose none of its potency. When we say consciousness exists, we're not saying something of similar importance of how a child might say giant pink elephants exist. They're both ideas, but we mean something very different.

vinceguidry 10y ago
> The word "exist" has a foundational importance in all of human intellectual activity. Are you sure about that? I have a personal mental exercise / thought experiment where I try to iterate on my understanding of what it means to exist. But I wouldn't call that foundational. I maybe run through it once a month or so. Certainly it's attained a great deal of importance, but really, iterating on my understanding is never going to really get me anywhere. Anything can be said to "exist". If you are thinking about it, it's currently existing in your mind as thought. If you're not thinking about it, but have thought about it in the past, then it exists in your memory. If you've never thought about it, then it's a potential that you could experience someday. It could also exist as a potential quantum state that nothing living could ever consider. I'm reminded of the "library" where every possible grouping of characters is tied together with a math function and you can search for whatever you want. Considering whether everything ever written 'exists' or not just kinda lost its thunder to me. If everything meets some criteria, then it's the criteria that needs to be examined, not the everything. Archimedes wanted to move the world with his lever, but really, it's way more interesting to just move half. You'd have to somehow escape your own mind before you could truly consider something that doesn't exist somewhere. I don't think existence, in that sense, is as big of an idea as people seem to think. The way I usually use it is to get at the fundamental quality of being human. I think about agency, goals, limitations, purpose. These things seem way more interesting than trying to drive at the fundamentals of everything. What it means for me to exist is way cooler to think about than what it means for my bed to exist.
- hackinthebochs 10y ago
  I'm perfectly fine with this deflationary concept of existence, and leave the "foundational importance" to particular kinds of existence that actually warrant it. Once its articulated like this I have no problem. But my problem is with those who want to speak of existence of abstract objects in terms that claim such entities are independently members of the constitutive fabric of the universe. I just have no idea what this kind of existence means.
metaphorm 10y ago
> They're both ideas, but we mean something very different. are you sure about that?. words are a social convention adopted to provide a vehicle for transferring meanings from one mind to another. what are the meanings underlying the words though? why do you agree that the conventional word "idea" can be used to signify both meanings, but then claim that the meaning is somehow very different.
- hackinthebochs 10y ago
  >why do you agree that the conventional word "idea" can be used to signify both meanings, but then claim that the meaning is somehow very different. Well I can only go by how the words are used. But when we're speaking rigorously, such ambiguities matter. The issue is that there are multiple ways these words are used. But when we try to use the casual meaning in more rigorous contexts, the discrepancies are important. When it comes to existence, people are purporting that there is an existence completely unlike physical existence, yet retains its centrality in our conception of the world and its constituents. I'm looking for clarity here. If we can't flesh out the nature of non-physical existence, we should refrain from using the term "exists" in those contexts.
  - metaphorm 10y ago
    ambiguity is an inescapable consequence of systems of communication based on social convention. That's really the fundamental reason why physicists have such a strong preference for mathematics. The convention there is of logic and notation rather than social preference and personal idiosyncrasy as with natural language. but we don't have the means to use a rigorous system of communication when discussing consciousness. there is no calculus of mind. its not even clear that there could be, in principle. so we need to re-calibrate our notion of rigor and precision to deal with the domain we're working in here. we shouldn't just wring our hands and lament that our communication tools fail us. we can still use them, we simply need to be more disciplined and avoid devolving into arguments about language semantics and conventions and try to focus on the actual content, ambiguous as it may seem. here's a simple working definition of "existence" that may be ambiguous but should hopefully not be controversial. a thing exists if it is experienced by a conscious mind. this includes material things which are experienced via the conventional senses (sight, hearing, etc.). it also includes immaterial things, such as thoughts and ideas, which are experienced internally within a conscious mind. this definition does not resolve the ambiguity regarding the point-of-origin of immaterial things, but that is not particularly relevant in my opinion. we don't need to answer that question in order to engage with the material, so let's just leave it unanswered.
paulsutter 10y ago
> What does non-physical existence even mean? This isn't an idle question Much of modern life exists by convention only (by agreement among people) and has no physical existence. Bank balances, ownership of property, no-parking zones, national borders, having a college degree, the prestige level of a school, friendship, being a Seahawks fan, agreements, the law, political affiliation, religion, etc.
- hackinthebochs 10y ago
  But all those things have an "ontology" (mode of existence) owing to being constituted by or supervening on things we know to exist (carbon, hydrogen, electrons, etc). These things are abstractions, but ultimately are grounded in physical existence either by the instantiating substance or substances that operate on the abstraction (e.g. brains). But those who argue for non-physical existence of things such as numbers are going further than this by saying that these non-physical entities are independently members of the constitutive fabric of the universe. This seems entirely unsupported and unnecessary.
  - EGreg 10y ago
    The concept of existence seems to require conscious observers.
    - PeterisP 10y ago
      Why? Did universe not exist before the first life appeared?
      - EGreg 10y ago
        The meaning of the word "exist" implies that it has some way to be detected by conscious observers. Consider this: if I tell you there about a parallel universe you can never detect or discover, how does saying "BUT IT EXISTS" differ from saying "GOT YOU, IT DOESNT EXIST"?
        10y ago
cgio 10y ago
Your definition of physical existence above is not circular in some sense, it is circular in any sense since you define physical existence in terms of interacting with other physical existence. Just to test your definition, are colour or sound physically existent in your definition?
- hackinthebochs 10y ago
  It's "in some sense" because we're defining the physical in terms of causal closure, rather than explaining the true nature of the physical (i.e. what physical matter supervenes on). >are colour or sound physically existent in your definition? Hard to answer without first having some kind of theory of mind. If we take the mind to be solely comprised of physical matter then mental states are particular organizations of that matter. Color and sound being mental states/percepts, they would be particular abstractions of physical matter. The abstraction itself would have no physical existence.
  - cgio 10y ago
    I am not sure I get your definition of causal closure. Would "black is what looks the same colour when put next to a black item" qualify as a causal closure, and if yes how can that be a non purely self referential definition in any sense? On colour and sound, how do you separate between the physical representation of the abstraction and the abstraction itself? You seem to be approaching a causal closure of non-physical existence, though one I am not sure is right.
    - hackinthebochs 10y ago
      The purpose of a definition is to pick out only those instances of a set you're attempting to refer to. The set of objects subject to causal influence by members of the set is well-defined and unique. Your example with black doesn't work because there are multiple non-intersecting sets that satisfy the critera, so we need some further conceptual machinery to distinguish them. >You seem to be approaching a causal closure of non-physical existence, though one I am not sure is right. I'm not sure I follow. To be clear, the "causal closure" was referring to the fact that the physical is subject to causation, rather than a generic term describing a set of self-similar items.
visarga 10y ago
> What does non physical existence even mean? It's a faulty concept. Everything is physical. But I think it refers to non-material aspects of the physical, especially patterns of cause and effect.

vinceguidry 10y ago

> The word "exist" has a foundational importance in all of human intellectual activity. Are you sure about that? I have a personal mental exercise / thought experiment where I try to iterate on my understanding of what it means to exist. But I wouldn't call that foundational. I maybe run through it once a month or so. Certainly it's attained a great deal of importance, but really, iterating on my understanding is never going to really get me anywhere. Anything can be said to "exist". If you are thinking about it, it's currently existing in your mind as thought. If you're not thinking about it, but have thought about it in the past, then it exists in your memory. If you've never thought about it, then it's a potential that you could experience someday. It could also exist as a potential quantum state that nothing living could ever consider. I'm reminded of the "library" where every possible grouping of characters is tied together with a math function and you can search for whatever you want. Considering whether everything ever written 'exists' or not just kinda lost its thunder to me. If everything meets some criteria, then it's the criteria that needs to be examined, not the everything. Archimedes wanted to move the world with his lever, but really, it's way more interesting to just move half. You'd have to somehow escape your own mind before you could truly consider something that doesn't exist somewhere. I don't think existence, in that sense, is as big of an idea as people seem to think. The way I usually use it is to get at the fundamental quality of being human. I think about agency, goals, limitations, purpose. These things seem way more interesting than trying to drive at the fundamentals of everything. What it means for me to exist is way cooler to think about than what it means for my bed to exist.

hackinthebochs 10y ago
I'm perfectly fine with this deflationary concept of existence, and leave the "foundational importance" to particular kinds of existence that actually warrant it. Once its articulated like this I have no problem. But my problem is with those who want to speak of existence of abstract objects in terms that claim such entities are independently members of the constitutive fabric of the universe. I just have no idea what this kind of existence means.

metaphorm 10y ago

> They're both ideas, but we mean something very different. are you sure about that?. words are a social convention adopted to provide a vehicle for transferring meanings from one mind to another. what are the meanings underlying the words though? why do you agree that the conventional word "idea" can be used to signify both meanings, but then claim that the meaning is somehow very different.

hackinthebochs 10y ago
>why do you agree that the conventional word "idea" can be used to signify both meanings, but then claim that the meaning is somehow very different. Well I can only go by how the words are used. But when we're speaking rigorously, such ambiguities matter. The issue is that there are multiple ways these words are used. But when we try to use the casual meaning in more rigorous contexts, the discrepancies are important. When it comes to existence, people are purporting that there is an existence completely unlike physical existence, yet retains its centrality in our conception of the world and its constituents. I'm looking for clarity here. If we can't flesh out the nature of non-physical existence, we should refrain from using the term "exists" in those contexts.
- metaphorm 10y ago
  ambiguity is an inescapable consequence of systems of communication based on social convention. That's really the fundamental reason why physicists have such a strong preference for mathematics. The convention there is of logic and notation rather than social preference and personal idiosyncrasy as with natural language. but we don't have the means to use a rigorous system of communication when discussing consciousness. there is no calculus of mind. its not even clear that there could be, in principle. so we need to re-calibrate our notion of rigor and precision to deal with the domain we're working in here. we shouldn't just wring our hands and lament that our communication tools fail us. we can still use them, we simply need to be more disciplined and avoid devolving into arguments about language semantics and conventions and try to focus on the actual content, ambiguous as it may seem. here's a simple working definition of "existence" that may be ambiguous but should hopefully not be controversial. a thing exists if it is experienced by a conscious mind. this includes material things which are experienced via the conventional senses (sight, hearing, etc.). it also includes immaterial things, such as thoughts and ideas, which are experienced internally within a conscious mind. this definition does not resolve the ambiguity regarding the point-of-origin of immaterial things, but that is not particularly relevant in my opinion. we don't need to answer that question in order to engage with the material, so let's just leave it unanswered.

paulsutter 10y ago

> What does non-physical existence even mean? This isn't an idle question Much of modern life exists by convention only (by agreement among people) and has no physical existence. Bank balances, ownership of property, no-parking zones, national borders, having a college degree, the prestige level of a school, friendship, being a Seahawks fan, agreements, the law, political affiliation, religion, etc.

hackinthebochs 10y ago
But all those things have an "ontology" (mode of existence) owing to being constituted by or supervening on things we know to exist (carbon, hydrogen, electrons, etc). These things are abstractions, but ultimately are grounded in physical existence either by the instantiating substance or substances that operate on the abstraction (e.g. brains). But those who argue for non-physical existence of things such as numbers are going further than this by saying that these non-physical entities are independently members of the constitutive fabric of the universe. This seems entirely unsupported and unnecessary.
- EGreg 10y ago
  The concept of existence seems to require conscious observers.
  - PeterisP 10y ago
    Why? Did universe not exist before the first life appeared?
    - EGreg 10y ago
      The meaning of the word "exist" implies that it has some way to be detected by conscious observers. Consider this: if I tell you there about a parallel universe you can never detect or discover, how does saying "BUT IT EXISTS" differ from saying "GOT YOU, IT DOESNT EXIST"?
      - 10y ago

cgio 10y ago

Your definition of physical existence above is not circular in some sense, it is circular in any sense since you define physical existence in terms of interacting with other physical existence. Just to test your definition, are colour or sound physically existent in your definition?

hackinthebochs 10y ago
It's "in some sense" because we're defining the physical in terms of causal closure, rather than explaining the true nature of the physical (i.e. what physical matter supervenes on). >are colour or sound physically existent in your definition? Hard to answer without first having some kind of theory of mind. If we take the mind to be solely comprised of physical matter then mental states are particular organizations of that matter. Color and sound being mental states/percepts, they would be particular abstractions of physical matter. The abstraction itself would have no physical existence.
- cgio 10y ago
  I am not sure I get your definition of causal closure. Would "black is what looks the same colour when put next to a black item" qualify as a causal closure, and if yes how can that be a non purely self referential definition in any sense? On colour and sound, how do you separate between the physical representation of the abstraction and the abstraction itself? You seem to be approaching a causal closure of non-physical existence, though one I am not sure is right.
  - hackinthebochs 10y ago
    The purpose of a definition is to pick out only those instances of a set you're attempting to refer to. The set of objects subject to causal influence by members of the set is well-defined and unique. Your example with black doesn't work because there are multiple non-intersecting sets that satisfy the critera, so we need some further conceptual machinery to distinguish them. >You seem to be approaching a causal closure of non-physical existence, though one I am not sure is right. I'm not sure I follow. To be clear, the "causal closure" was referring to the fact that the physical is subject to causation, rather than a generic term describing a set of self-similar items.

visarga 10y ago

> What does non physical existence even mean? It's a faulty concept. Everything is physical. But I think it refers to non-material aspects of the physical, especially patterns of cause and effect.