4 ms·

The problem with that is that, then, what exists (in the unrestricted sense of 'exist' the OP is after) becomes event-relative: not everything that exists from

The problem with that is that, then, what exists (in the unrestricted sense of 'exist' the OP is after) becomes event-relative: not everything that exists from your vantage point exists from the vantage point of someone in Alfa Centauri or whatever. You may want to live with this 'metaphysical relativism', but it is hardly better than the solution offered by the OP, which is the standard one.

vehemenz 4y ago
Or we can reject ontological anti-realism. That is, what "exists" in the first place are linguistic conventions constrained by physics, our understanding, and practicality.
- vehemenz 4y ago
  Please note the inverted commas around 'exists' in my comment. They are there for a reason. I can imagine the layman ascribing some mystical quality to ontological anti-realism, but, ironically, the view acts to dispel the mystical quality of uncritical "existence" claims that many take for granted (much like theism, moral realism, etc.).
pdonis 4y ago
> what exists (in the unrestricted sense of 'exist' the OP is after) becomes event-relative Well, of course; that's how we already use the term "exist" in ordinary language. We say that our past of today "exists", but tomorrow does not, at least not yet. But tomorrow, we'll say that what we now call tomorrow does "exist". So our ordinary language concept of "exists" already takes into account that what "exists" changes over time.
- Schiphol 4y ago
  The commonsense tensed 'exist' is not a good model to 'only my light cone exists'. The former says that events in my causal past and future do not exist, for example. The latter only makes sense as a proposal about some unrestricted notion of existence. More or less: what is the smallest catalogue of entities I need to commit myself to, if I want to make sense of the science?
  - pdonis 4y ago
    > what is the smallest catalogue of entities I need to commit myself to, if I want to make sense of the science? I'm fine with this formulation, because I think the answer to it is the one I gave: the past light cone of your "here and now".

vehemenz 4y ago

Or we can reject ontological anti-realism. That is, what "exists" in the first place are linguistic conventions constrained by physics, our understanding, and practicality.

vehemenz 4y ago
Please note the inverted commas around 'exists' in my comment. They are there for a reason. I can imagine the layman ascribing some mystical quality to ontological anti-realism, but, ironically, the view acts to dispel the mystical quality of uncritical "existence" claims that many take for granted (much like theism, moral realism, etc.).

pdonis 4y ago

> what exists (in the unrestricted sense of 'exist' the OP is after) becomes event-relative Well, of course; that's how we already use the term "exist" in ordinary language. We say that our past of today "exists", but tomorrow does not, at least not yet. But tomorrow, we'll say that what we now call tomorrow does "exist". So our ordinary language concept of "exists" already takes into account that what "exists" changes over time.

Schiphol 4y ago
The commonsense tensed 'exist' is not a good model to 'only my light cone exists'. The former says that events in my causal past and future do not exist, for example. The latter only makes sense as a proposal about some unrestricted notion of existence. More or less: what is the smallest catalogue of entities I need to commit myself to, if I want to make sense of the science?
- pdonis 4y ago
  > what is the smallest catalogue of entities I need to commit myself to, if I want to make sense of the science? I'm fine with this formulation, because I think the answer to it is the one I gave: the past light cone of your "here and now".