What do you mean by "exist"?
- jomineposted 12 years ago
0To define means, to describe clearly, to convey a word's proper meaning.
So I define "Exist" as having shape, a physical presence.
Relativist say they never define, and hence can use words ambiguously and inconsistently. So the meaning is derived by the one who hear it, than by the one who say it and hence actually is meaningless!
Without a proper definition, no ideas can be conveyed meaningfully, and science is an idea that has to be conveyed meaningfully. That is why in science, before any dissertation all the crucial words are defined by the presenter and is sticked to, till the end.
Eg:-"How can I intimate this to my most intimate friend"
So the word intimate has two meanings.
Eg2:-Since there is no time like the present, he thought it was time to present the present.
So can anybody define "Exist" consistently and unambiguously.
And if you have time, please define the words "object" and "concept" too.
But beware, the definition should be consistent, unambiguous and rational.I wrote a definition in that thread and you disagreed with it. That's fair enough, but I didn't avoid a definition.
"I would define exist as something which has the capacity to effect another system and/or parts of the same system. "
Wasn't this your definition?
I explained there itself, it does not constitute a definition. OK, once more.
Suppose there is only one 'object' in this universe, your definition will not hold as there is nothing else to affect.
"Something" is a synonym of "object".
So your definition is not a stand alone definition, you just described one property of "something", an object.
Can you give a proper definition? Otherwise we will have to stick to my definition.
And you didn't define "object"!First off I would define "something" as an object, a process or a property. So to make my initial definition of exist clearer and more accurate: "An object, process or property exists when it has the capacity to effect another system and/or parts of the same system."
If there was only one object in the universe then it could well have interior processes and properties that interact and effect it, so my definition does hold, but the image of only one single elementary object in the universe has no meaning. We can't imagine a quark floating around in empty space on its own because it can't exist on its own - it can only exist as part of a larger system.
This means that this object (a quark), is part of a system. A system which interacts and effects itself internally because of its constituent objects and innate properties and processes. In other words your object is not a stand alone "thing".
What in your view is the most fundamental object that exists?"What in your view is the most fundamental object that exists?"
It should be an "atom".
“First off I would define "something" as an object, a process or a property. So to make my initial definition of exist clearer and more accurate: "An object, process or property exists when it has the capacity to effect another system and/or parts of the same system."
A process is a series of action. So an action is what something "does", not what something "is". Similarly Property is what something "has". Suppose I raise my hand, it is an action, does “raising” suddenly exist?
Again, when you say “thing” it means is an object, a synonym. What we need is a definition not a synonym. A thing is not a process, a thing take part in a process, a thing is not capacity, and a thing has capacity! So an object has the capacity to affect another directly or through a process…… see you are describing an object, not defining what an ‘object’ is.
“If there was only one object in the universe then it could well have interior processes and properties that interact and effect it, so my definition does hold, but the image of only one single elementary object in the universe has no meaning. We can't imagine a quark floating around in empty space on its own because it can't exist on its own - it can only exist as part of a larger system. “
For the definition purpose, we are assuming there is only one object. So the object should exist according to the definition, otherwise the definition is not valid.
Again nothing in the world can be created or destroyed! Even Mr. God won’t be able to do that. So far nobody is able to propose an atomic structure that may be consistently used in all explanations, so forget what is inside the atom, till somebody proposes that!!
“This means that this object (a quark), is part of a system. A system which interacts and effects itself internally because of its constituent objects and innate properties and processes. In other words your object is not a stand alone "thing" “.
Whether it is part or whole our definition should include it, which is why it is called a definition.
Exist ... is the Materialist's "acronym" of ... Be !
For it helps Hide, such a lot of Cognitive anomalies, and shortcomings !
Shape, and Physical Presence, are "seen" by Seculars ... in Prejudice's Blindness ... For to them, Shapes, Physically tangible Formal Presences, Dimensions, Colors etc. ... Represent, an Existential Reality ... where a Material Nature ... Defines the State of Being.
And Relativists, do not have any Definitive Understanding, of Reality ... For they cannot see, beyond Quantums ... They see the Mechanics, as Tribes, Relatives, Cousins, Mothers and Sons ... as Representing their ideals of Existential Reality ... that has nothing to do with the rest of Humankind !
And Ideas, are not necessarily Conveyed via Physical means ... by relying purely on Physical Senses ... The best, Conveyances are ... the Ideal's Conveyances ...
And Secularism ... is the self-contradictory Duality; of Belief ... Where ones Practices, do not necessarily have to Corroborate, with one's Rational, or Irrational Beliefs ... To Seculars, Belief, is nothing more than Traditional Rituals, Celebrated as ... "Ceremonies" ... Performed before the "Real" Action begins !
To the Blind, "things" continue to Exist in total darkness ... where the ones, with unseeing Eyes ... often go blind ...
Do you know, the Blind can also "hear" Colors ... that they do also "see" Dreams !
Can you Imagine, what the Seeing Eyes behold ?
And as regarding the Logical Explanation of Exist ... I do not have any Rational explanations of a State ... Ordained, by The Lord, In, Creation ... Forms, Manifesting The Ordained State of Being ... Existing ... Composing the Existential's Reality ...Our supposed universe is 'binary', that is either something exist or it does not, there is no in between. Or you explain how it is possible.
When something 'exist', it doesn't matter whether you see it or not. My chair exist, irrespective of what i believe, irrespective of whether I see it. What someone sees or believes is their personal problems, and it is better if they don't come out in public with their irrational beliefs, or be ready to be ridiculed!
I don't know this 'lord' thing you are talking about. As you have mentioned 'creation', i think it is the supposed creator you mean.
But I have to presume, you didn't witness that creation event, neither did I. As an event that has happened in the past, we can only explain how it happened. As it is an explanation it should not be contradictory and illogical. Creation in any form is irrational and illogical. So even if your creator existed he didn't create anything and logically he is just a byproduct of the existing universe.
So can you explain rationally? If not what ever you say is nonsense.
"Do you know, the Blind can also "hear" Colors"
Synesthetics can taste color, hear color.... So what one feels and why one feels will be better explained by neuroscientists, don't try it!Thank you Jomine ...
and, Well ... Well ... and yet another, Well !
Its apparent, you have never read a word, of what I write here on these Hub Pages ...
Because, as I understand ... the Hub Pages are an equal opportunity Forum, where humble believers share, what little they know, with, the "all Knowing" ... the all seeing, all understanding ... the "Wise" ... non-believers ... whose held Truths, fortunately for Believers, are based in utterly Irrational Nonsense...
All secularized Beliefs, you should understand, rest in, what is Logics, sans Reason ... Myths, Substantiating, the irrationally held Beliefs, defining the Secular Concepts of Reality.
Anyway ... Its strange, that a few groups, perennially attack Believers on Hub Pages ... attacking Belief in His Creation ... without bothering to read, what the Believers have to say, or have said about such a Belief ... Its certain, you too belong to one of these second, third, or fourth lines of Defense ...
For if you guys had had the courtesy, to read ... before launching a tirade against me and my Belief ... it is likely, that instead of insinuating obnoxious titles, you might have been asking me an intelligent question, or two, about what I write, or about my Belief ...
For all what you ask, are matter of my address, in these Hub Pages... there are about 20 Edited Hubs, of 82 Papers on these Pages.
Anyway, it does not matter in the least, what you think about Truth and Reality ... or me, or Belief, or God ... Because, what you believe in, are merely Insubstantial Theories
Thus, if I had had an inclination towards Nastiness ... which, frankly, I lack, grossly ... I could have sent back your reply ... back to you, with the alteration, where your name replaces mine ... in replying ... to you.
Regards"Its apparent, you have never read a word, of what I write here on these Hub Pages ... "
I only answered the forum reply, for that I don't have to read all your forums or hubs.
"non-believers ... whose held Truths, fortunately for Believers, are based in utterly Irrational Nonsense..."
Frankly, I don't care what you "believe". "Belief", "truth" etc are opinions, which may be dear to you, but when you come for a discussion you should have a rational argument, "magic" won't do.
"Secular Concepts of Reality"
Reality is not a concept!!
"Believers have to say, or have said about such a Belief ... Its certain, you too belong to one of these second, third, or fourth lines of Defense ..."
If you have nothing else to say other than belief, I don't care. People believe so many things. I believe tomorrow it will rain in Sahara desert, so? Do you share that belief? Will you ask others to subscribe to that belief?
"For if you guys had had the courtesy, to read ... before launching a tirade against me and my Belief ... it is likely, that instead of insinuating obnoxious titles, you might have been asking me an intelligent question, or two, about what I write, or about my Belief ...
For all what you ask, are matter of my address, in these Hub Pages... there are about 20 Edited Hubs, of 82 Papers on these Pages."
I rarely get into religious forums now a days, I don't take magik for an answer. You may not see the irrationalities in your religion, but people who don't subscribe to your beliefs can, forget about nonbelievers.
"Anyway, it does not matter in the least, what you think about Truth and Reality ... or me, or Belief, or God ... Because, what you believe in, are merely Insubstantial Theories"
Where did I say anything about believing anything? What theory?
"Thus, if I had had an inclination towards Nastiness ... which, frankly, I lack, grossly ... I could have sent back your reply ... back to you, with the alteration, where your name replaces mine ... in replying ... to you."
I don't see where the nastiness is. If calling your beliefs irrational is nastiness, I can't help, it is irrational or you explain in a rational way!I have read your "Rebuttal " ...
Thats why I say, you do not read a word, of what I write ... but thanks for your personal confirmation ... that you don't have to read me, in order to criticize me, and my Islamic Belief.
Anyway, tell me about one ... just one ... any one ... from amongst the hundreds of your "held" Concepts, of Existential Reality, based in the Logical Ideals of your Science's Physical "Reality" ...
Because, you cannot ... For what you believe in, are false concepts, of a purely Material, Reality.
A Reality ... That Self-Exists, within Eternal Infinities ... At best, defined as the Cycle of birth, death, and rebirth ... an idea, clearly borrowed from Buddha's philosophy.
It means, that your Reality, comes into being, simply out of nowhere ... for that matter, is going nowhere ... Except Expanding, in the Big Bang, and Crunching, in the Big Retracting ... !
Your Logics and Science, State this in the words of a Theory ... that "The Physical Universe came into Being, as the Result of a "Catalyst-less" Big Bang... ! "
I say the same ... but within Belief ... Definitively. That God Created The Existent Reality ... composed of the Substantial Totality, that all the Forms, thus, Came to Be ... Spontaneously !
And whereas you Believe, that Ideas, Self-Exist, in the Brain's Neural Activity ... I say, the Ideals have been Granted, By The Lord, to humans, In State of the Mind ... so that we may distinguish, between Truth and Fallacy !
If ... you have read basic Physics, and Chemistry, you will know, that a "Catalyst-less" Occurrence, in the Physical state, is simply Impossible ... its like one of the moons of Jupiter, or Saturn, made up of Methane ... Exploding of its own Accord ... without Oxygen ... in a fiery Meteor, serving as all thats needed by way of a Catalyst !
Regarding personal Opinions about Reality ... Please allow me to say ... I do not have any Opinions about the Existential Reality.
Au contraire ... what you state, are opinions ... I just State the Truth, of a Created Reality.
Good Bye once again, my friend."Thats why I say, you do not read a word, of what I write ... but thanks for your personal confirmation ... that you don't have to read me, in order to criticize me, and my Islamic Belief."
I said I don't read your posts, I was ONLY ANSWERING THE REPLY YOU POSTED IN THIS FORUM. And I don't need your posts to understand islam, if I read it what I can maximum understand is your version.
"For what you believe in, are false concepts, of a purely Material, Reality.
A Reality ... That Self-Exists, within Eternal Infinities ... At best, defined as the Cycle of birth, death, and rebirth"
Who told you about belief? Are you incapable to understand that absence of belief is not the same as having a belief. Eternal infinities?? Can you see the contradiction in that?
"It means, that your Reality, comes into being, simply out of nowhere ... for that matter, is going nowhere ... Except Expanding, in the Big Bang, and Crunching, in the Big Retracting"
Did I say anything to support the big BS stuff?
"Your Logics and Science, State this in the words of a Theory ... that "The Physical Universe came into Being, as the Result of a "Catalyst-less" Big Bang... ! "
Can't you read? What I said is creation in any form, whether it is big bang's or big daddy's, is irrational!
"I say the same ... but within Belief ... Definitively. That God Created The Existent Reality ... composed of the Substantial Totality, that all the Forms, thus, Came to Be ... Spontaneously"
I again tell you, what you believe is no concern of mine. You may as well believe a giant that live in your well created the universe, it is your choice.
"And whereas you Believe, that Ideas, Self-Exist, in the Brain's Neural Activity ... I say, the Ideals have been Granted, By The Lord, to humans, In State of the Mind ... so that we may distinguish, between Truth and Fallacy"
What truth? What lord?
"If ... you have read basic Physics, and Chemistry, you will know, that a "Catalyst-less" Occurrence, in the Physical state, is simply Impossible ... its like one of the moons of Jupiter, or Saturn, made up of Methane ... Exploding of its own Accord ... without Oxygen ... in a fiery Meteor, serving as all thats needed by way of a Catalyst"
Not interested in BS.
"Regarding personal Opinions about Reality ... Please allow me to say ... I do not have any Opinions about the Existential Reality.
Au contraire ... what you state, are opinions ... I just State the Truth, of a Created Reality."
You can have any opinion you want and you can write any nonsense you like, but don't ask others to do the same!Thank you once again for sparing some time to read ...
You see ... when you ask Questions like ... what does the Noun "Exist" means ... you should have the patience, to read ... what I write ... and try understand ... not curse me ...
Likewise, its your business to do as you like ... or Believe ... Believing is ones very own, very personal business."You see ... when you ask Questions like ... what does the Noun "Exist" means ... you should have the patience, to read ... what I write ... and try understand ... not curse me ...
Likewise, its your business to do as you like ... or Believe ... Believing is ones very own, very personal business"
For me to understand, you need to write clearly, but you like a relativist, don't define. Definition is to convey ideas unambiguously and clearly. Then, you also presume I 'believe' in the nonsense of relativity and quantum. Yes, I believe! I believe my parents, I believe my friends. When I drive my car i believe it will not get into any accidents. But beyond that I don't. What ever your religion, be it Islam, or Christian, or Hindu Or relativity, I don't believe. I THINK about it. If there is any contradiction in the argument, I reject otherwise I accept, but there is no question of belief!
And so far i haven't cursed anybody. You are the one who accuses me of nastiness and you are the one who say I curse, but when did I do any of it?
If you can clearly explain without any contradiction, I am more than willing to accept. I came to the forums to discuss ideas and study more, not just to debate. So anybody who explain properly will get my respect, anybody who invoke magic or just say nonsense will get ridicule!The problem here is what you consider contradiction and nonsense are actually working theories supported with evidence, which is what you're ridiculing.
But, that isn't even the root of the problem. which appears to be more about definitions and terms of the English language.
Hence, I see no willingness whatsoever on your part to discuss ideas or study as a result if you're unable to move beyond definitions of words and somehow believe the rest of us need to define or redefine terms to suit your purposes.
If English is your second language and you're unfamiliar with it's use, it isn't reason to assume others don't understand the language and are able to communicate their ideas effectively using it.
Beelzedad,
Do you agree that before a scientific presentation, the presenter should define all the crucial terms?
Suppose as a presentation, if I say the "gdxfjk" of the particle increases if it moves at light speed, won't you ask me what this "gdxfjk" is?
Similarly I am asking the basic question when you say 'time dilated' or 'space expanded', what is this 'time' or 'space' you said, which has done all these.
And when you say 'expand' or 'dilate', it should be an object. No concept has ever done this, nor is going to do it, as concepts are just thoughts, just like love or justice(You don't say either of that expanded, do you?).
Now if it is an object, objects are those which "exist". So naturally you have to define "exist". Objects have shape. Anything with shape, there is no reason, we cannot VISUALIZE.
objects we visualize, concepts we understand.
Now tell me you visualize time and space, or you understand it?
Now regarding your experiment,
You drop an apple, it falls to the ground.
Now you are going to rationally explain why it went to the ground and not to the ceiling. You put forward a hypothesis. Now, it is not because of the hypothesis or theory you know that, it is falling to the ground the next time you drop it, but only because you have seen it a thousand times before. If it go to the ceiling the next time, you have to change your theory to suit the new observation.
So a theory is just a rational, non contradictory explanation of past events. It is not "absolute truths". So there is no need of evidence there!
Or theory of evolution, you find some dinosaur bones, that theory is put forward as a rational explanation of observed phenomenon. The bones are not proving anything, we are explaining how the bones got there, creationism is another explanation, but we reject it, as it is contradictory, irrational as an explanation.Why should they be a dictionary? That makes no sense at all.
Is that because "gdzfjk" is a brand new word that was made up specifically for the presentation? Why would the presenter be making up new words?
Again, check a dictionary if you're unable to understand the English language.
Again, is English not your first language? Are you still in elementary or high school and still haven't found a dictionary yet?
Sorry, what is your definition of the terms, "ground, ceiling, hypothesis and apple"?
Notice how ridiculous that question is in light of your statement?
Yes, there is need of evidence to support a theory.
Strawman fallacy. Evolution is not just about dinosaur bones.Why should they be a dictionary? That makes no sense at all.
Again, check a dictionary if you're unable to understand the English language."
So you know nothing about scientific language? Just know that science a word has a single meaning and that meaning is adhered to, through out, while in common parlance a word has different meanings and can be used to explain so many things. If you have any idea, just look at the word "bias", how it is used scientifically, and how it is used in common parlance. When ever you point to dictionary used for layman, you are just talking layman language, not science.
"Sorry, what is your definition of the terms, "ground, ceiling, hypothesis and apple"?Notice how ridiculous that question is in light of your statement?"
Certainly if I was doing a scientific presentation I have to define all those crucial terms, but I was just giving a small example for you to understand "science".
"Yes, there is need of evidence to support a theory."
"prove" it!!
"Strawman fallacy. Evolution is not just about dinosaur bones."
Certainly it is not. I just gave one specific example. But what ever it is, all are past events, that are explained!! You are not going to explain something that is yet to happen. And all explanations should be natural, but you will never understand that.Again, you appear to be having a problem with the English language. Perhaps, some remedial courses could help you.
Why? We have dictionaries if we don't understand a term.
You're absolutely right, I have no idea what you're talking about.As per your dictionary "love", "exists".
So you can make it the 5th-dimension and add to your equation. Space-time-love 5D.
Well, you say something arise from nothing, then the something gave rise to everything. Theist say god arise from nothing and god gave rise to everything. What difference? Creationism and irrational-ism!
What I don't understand is, why you object the theists, they have just different names!
When you know that science does not use common language and common dictionary, science use every word consistently, talk about science. Till then be content with your religion. You may debate whether Christianity is better or Relativity is better, whether your proof is better or their miracles are better, but it will have nothing to do with science.Another strawman fallacy.
So, not only do you have a problem with the English language, you appear to have a problem distinguishing theism from science. Seems you have quite a bit to learn, yet.
Okee dokee."Another strawman fallacy."
How come? Yo make time exist, and make it the 4th D, Why not love?
"So, not only do you have a problem with the English language, you appear to have a problem distinguishing theism from science. Seems you have quite a bit to learn, yet."
Your type of science is no different from religion-IRRATIONAL and idiotic. Only idiots can do it!
Space- is nothing, a void. Yet you attribute properties to space. You claim "nothing" expands and again claim you have 'proof' for that expansion. You are not able to visualize 4D, don't even know the difference between object and concept, don't even know what time is, yet you claim you know about all these and still unable to tell the audience what you know! These is what is called religion.My goodness, there is much work for you ahead which now includes understanding logical fallacies.
Yes, I understand you are compelled to spit venom in light of intelligent discussion.
If that is the illusion you wish to embrace, feel free to do so. You can pick up a dictionary, anytime."My goodness, there is much work for you ahead which now includes understanding logical fallacies."
Without a consistent meaning how can you say it is illogical?
"Yes, I understand you are compelled to spit venom in light of intelligent discussion."
Intelligent? So far it is unintelligible. You simply use words to fit your agenda, inconsistently, yet say you do science!
"If that is the illusion you wish to embrace, feel free to do so. You can pick up a dictionary, anytime."
Do you know what an illusion is? Space a "thing"?
Yea that is your science!
Thanks for being considerate ... by once again quoting, my stated.
Anyway, you see, I am not in the "Business" of
"TV-Evangelism" or "e-Proselytism" ... I have my work to do ... To, Re-Define the Logics bound modern Concepts of Sciences and Philosophy ... but am forced to respond, when some one whose Belief, I respect, hurls the abuse of Ignorance, at my professed Islamic Belief ...
Curse, in my dictionary means ...
When someone writes 'fancy' prose ... or talks about Syntax, Grammar, and Punctuations ... in replying to my post ... knowing fully well, that most folks cannot readily grasp, what I say ... thus, they can be drawn, to follow the "fancy cliche" ... and made to learn ... to Ignore The Truth ...
This attitude of Superiority, this hoodwinking, this misguiding, of simple folks, to me, Is an abuse of Humankind, for I am a part of the humble... composing, Humanity.
Magical ... is something, where in the Logical Sequences of an Action, a Step is 'Seen" Missing, yet things, being there, where things should not be ... in Logical Sequences, defining the Manifestation of things, Existing in a Logical Order of Being !
Darwin's idea of Existence, in Evolution ... with the "Missing" Link, is a good example of the Magical of all Theories.
I ... am not a Logics enslaved Person ... I reject Evolution, for I Believe In, Creation ... for I am a Free Person ... For I can think, Within, and Beyond the shackles of Reason ... with equal felicity.
Truth, is the Un-alloyed State of Human Awareness .. our Experiential of Reality, when one "sees" Truth, with the eyes of the Living Soul ... The Brilliance, Shining Eternally.
All I can help you with is ask you ... Please read any one of my Hubs ... there is all I know on the subject ... all the Whys and Hows answered ... Afterwards, Pose a Specific Question ... I will be more than happy to Reply.
Jo.
The operative word in defining "exist," is "BE."
Of course "exist/be" can only be defined if there is a "conscious" entity which can create the concept, based upon the biological explanation of SOR (Stimulus, Organism, Response.)
Their doesn't exist another species of life on this planet that can think of, cause to "exist" and communicate a thought like: "
What do you mean by "exist"?"
"I think, therefore, I am!"
If man were to disappear, the "concept" of "exist" would disappear with him.
There would not be a "consciousness" "existing" upon "THIS" planet that could make 'to exist" meaningful.
The human concept: "to exist" is totally dependent upon a consciouness of it!
Qwark
Here ya go, although there are many more references available.
http://dictionary.reference.com/Came just for trolling, eh?
In science I said. Consistent and unambiguous too.
Here the word "exist" meanings
1.to have actual being; be:
2.to have life or animation
3.to continue to be or live.
The first is a synonym, not a definition. The other two are entirely different meanings.
Energy exist.
God exist.
Which meaning will you be using?
And DEFINE, instead of using synonyms.
Well it may be difficult for you, as you have never learned science.If you ask for definitions and I provide you a dictionary, how is that trolling?
Amazing how you came to that conclusion from a post that had a link to a dictionary.No scientist will give the reference to a dictionary for common parlance when asked about a scientific term.
Since when is the word "exist" a scientific term over that of common parlance?
Since when it is not?
Objects exist. Science deals entirely with objects, that is things that exist. Without knowing what you are dealing with, without defining the most basic of terms what science are you doing?
If you yourself cannot differentiate between stuff that exist and that doesnot, what whom are you trying to educate?So essentially, you're still trying to find a dictionary and have gone from being confused about definitions to assigning those definitions to other categories.
Don't you have better use for your time, like 'dilating' it for instance!!
Or just go to religious forums and debate whether relativity is better or Christianity is better, you may 'expand' some 'space", when you get bored!No problem, I would be more than happy to ignore your posts as your request. I am tingling at the thought.
Great!
I found no difference in your arguments and religious mans arguments.
If you ever think rationally, you are always welcome to point out my mistakes and will be thankful to you for that.
But as long as you cannot differentiate between an object and concept, stuff that exists and stuff that does not, I do not expect any meaningful discussion from you!
If you ever take advice, kindly take a leave from these forums and think for yourselves, after forgetting all that has been taught to you, just think what all things are there in the world, just try to understand what an object and concept is, and try to visualize how objects are!
jomine:
Do you honestly not believe in the extreme basics of special relativity? Because putting 'dilating' in quotes seems to suggest that you consider time dilation, a phenomenon that has been demonstrated countless times over the past century, as a concept with as little validity as religious faith.
And you say that Beelzedad never learned science? I'm guessing that you didn't either; the concepts of special relativity can easily be explained to a first year college student with little to no background in physics.
ex means past. exis or past is. The T I don't know. I like to break it down for myself.
To "exist" means to "be" and to "be" means to "exist."
To define something, you must reference it to something else. By definition then, "exist" cannot be defined in the way anything else can be defined. Because in order to define "exist" you would need to reference it to something else, but then that something else must exist, bringing us into a circular problem.
So "exist" is a concept that can be described or clarified, but ultimately must be taken on blind faith.
"So I define "Exist" as having shape, a physical presence."
This definition doesn't work according to what I wrote above because you reference "exist" in terms of something else--in this case, shape and physical presence. So do "shape" and "physical presence" exist?
lol...- Uirikposted 12 years ago0
Jommine
they say that we are friends but I don't know why!
Exist; to have presence and characteristics.
Shape is a characteristic of an object. Hence things that have shape and are physically present exists. But it is not neccesarilly true that things that exists have shape. - jomineposted 12 years ago0
LoGanthner
Science is not about believing, its about explaining.
What is time? If it is a concept, how can you dilate it? All they were trying to do is explain the changes of a clock. If it is an object, we should be able to visualize it, as all objects have shape.
Concepts can be explained, but you can never do that to a concept, that which can be done to an object, as concepts are just thoughts, conceived by an intelligent brain!Time is not simply a concept like certain elements of mathematics; it is experienced in nature. That is why physics concerns itself with it. My definition of time would be:
The fourth dimension, whose progression allows for evolution of objects in the three space dimensions.
Or do you believe that the space dimensions are also only "conceived by an intelligent brain"? And by the way, most ways in which relativity is demonstrated do not involve man-made clocks, but unstable elements or particles whose average lifetime is know. Muons coming through the atmosphere, for example. If it were not for relativity, they would never be able to reach the surface of the earth, even in minute quantities."it is experienced in nature."
Experienced? That is why it need someone to experience time. If there is no one to experience, then there is no time.
In fact it is our memory that help as with this experience.
"The fourth dimension, whose progression allows for evolution of objects in the three space dimensions.
Or do you believe that the space dimensions are also only "conceived by an intelligent brain"?"
What is this 'dimension' and space' Space is not an object to have dimension. Only objects have dimension. Dimension is intrinsic to an object and orthogonal and mutually perpendicular. There is nothing in nature that has more than 3 or less than 2 dimensions. And 2D are only pictures!!
"And by the way, most ways in which relativity is demonstrated do not involve man-made clocks, but unstable elements or particles whose average lifetime is know. Muons coming through the atmosphere, for example. If it were not for relativity, they would never be able to reach the surface of the earth, even in minute quantities."
What you call these subatomic particles are just traces on a plate. The description are all wrong as they all say all these are 0D particles, (nonexistent). Nobody really know how an atom look like. so forget about what is inside.
You still didn't say whether time is an object or a concept?All the "facts" that you argue with are statements you have made up yourself and asserted as true. "If there is no one to experience, then there is no time." Granted, this is more of a philosophical question than a physics question. Though I disagree with you on this point, I concede temporarily: it would be a very minor axiom to assume that something exists in the universe. If nothing existed, there would be nothing to study and. ultimately, no physics to be done. To debate over this point is to debate over nonsense.
The second point you proclaim to be true true is that "only objects can have dimension." Really? So we cannot measure the length of empty space between two meteors, say, because only the meteors themselves have dimension? The idea of the space dimensions allows us to measure lengths and distances, whether or not an object is present to measure.
And why are you so certain that no object has less than three dimensions? I hate to break it to you, but particles like electrons and muons are point-like particles; there is nothing wrong with the "description". If you think this means that they do not exist, then your definition of existence is shallow and unsophisticated with respect to modern day science.
Finally, I would describe time neither as an object nor as a concept. By 'object' you seem to mean a rock, or a book, or anything that you can touch. By concept I mean something like a mathematical circle--it is an idea that we can attempt to represent physically, but no circle exists in the universe. Space and time are not concepts; they are true physical boundaries that can be used as tools of measurement.
What exactly are you trying to accomplish here? Do you honestly believe that you understand particle physics or relativity better than people like Richard Feynman, and all the physicists who came after him? Time dilation is the equivalent of length contraction, and it has been experimentally demonstrated so many times. This is how the scientific method works: a theory is presented, and it is tested under a variety of tests and experiments for consistency. If it proves itself to be robust, it is (usually) accepted by the scientific community. If you still deny relativity, you are rejecting the scientific method and appealing to ignorance."If nothing existed, there would be nothing to study and. ultimately, no physics to be done. To debate over this point is to debate over nonsense."
Good that you agree 'something' should 'exist' for physics to be done. So it is absolutely necessary that you define 'something' and 'exist', otherwise how will you know what you are studying?
"The second point you proclaim to be true true is that "only objects can have dimension." Really? So we cannot measure the length of empty space between two meteors, say, because only the meteors themselves have dimension? The idea of the space dimensions allows us to measure lengths and distances, whether or not an object is present to measure."
So what is dimension? Is it what you measure with a scale?
What is the difference between length, distance and distance traveled?
"And why are you so certain that no object has less than three dimensions? I hate to break it to you, but particles like electrons and muons are point-like particles; there is nothing wrong with the "description". If you think this means that they do not exist, then your definition of existence is shallow and unsophisticated with respect to modern day science."
Define exist then you will understand.
"Finally, I would describe time neither as an object nor as a concept. By 'object' you seem to mean a rock, or a book, or anything that you can touch. By concept I mean something like a mathematical circle--it is an idea that we can attempt to represent physically, but no circle exists in the universe. Space and time are not concepts; they are true physical boundaries that can be used as tools of measurement"
If you say there is something other than objects exist, it is your claim, and it is your job to rationally explain. We are not talking about religion, where the theist ask you to show evidence that god does not exist, this is science.
"What exactly are you trying to accomplish here? Do you honestly believe that you understand particle physics or relativity better than people like Richard Feynman, and all the physicists who came after him? Time dilation is the equivalent of length contraction, and it has been experimentally demonstrated so many times. This is how the scientific method works: a theory is presented, and it is tested under a variety of tests and experiments for consistency. If it proves itself to be robust, it is (usually) accepted by the scientific community. If you still deny relativity, you are rejecting the scientific method and appealing to ignorance."
Argument from authority is not warranted, all you have to do is define the words rationally and use it consistently to explain.
Scientific method? You know in scientific method, the presenter is required to define all the crucial terms unambiguously?
With out defining time how do you know that it dilated?
- Kihruiposted 12 years ago0
Loganther
'your definition of existence is shallow and unsophisticated with respect to mordern science'
And what is your definition of the word exist then?
If Jomine's definition donnot allow 0d particles to exist, then after all, that is the purpose of defining, to restrict the use of a word so as not to mean everything which means to mean nothing. That is where 'deep' definitions and 'sophisticated' ones can lead
you asked:
'are you smarter than feynman?'
What do you mean? Feynman was an idiot when seen by someone else! What should we do? If someone who won a nobel prize tells you he can travel faster than his shadow should we say yes and amen? Should we put our brains in the pockets and bow to Feynman?
You said
'you made up all what you said and asserted that they are true'
if I am not wrong, Jomine have not asserted that anything is true at all here. It is you who is forcing 'time dillations' etc down our throats as eternal gospels! Well this subject is more of philosophical. Philosophers have different meaning of reality. Therefore since exist simply means what we know is real even if we cannot see it but we know it is there. It becomes difficult to agree on the concept of something being real. Yet that simple definition of exist is what may know and understand. It exist because it is not imagined but is real, can be seen, or we know it is there by it effects or actions even when we can't see it. Many answers will continue to come.
Um, yes, complete fallacy. For a start things that exist may be objects, actions or abstract concepts. To exist does not imply to physically occupy space, let alone be a "dimension".
This has already been covered in what I said. Things that exist influence the physical world in three ways, by occupying space, by being an action of those things, or as abstract concepts.
Your questions really are nonsense. I would suggest reading some Wittgenstein and then some BF Skinner and then coming back to see if you can have a sensible discussion."Things that exist influence the physical world in three ways, by occupying space, by being an action of those things, or as abstract concepts."
I didn't ask you what does things that exist do, I asked what is "exist", which even with your wide knowledge you are unable to answer!"Existence really is an imperfect tense that never becomes a present.
In the consciousness of the truth he has perceived, man now sees everywhere only the awfulness or the absurdity of existence and loathing seizes him.
The irrationality of a thing is no argument against its existence, rather a condition of it."
Friedrich Nietzsche
"The very existence of flame-throwers proves that some time, somewhere, someone said to themselves, You know, I want to set those people over there on fire, but I'm just not close enough to get the job done."
George CarlinPhilosophy is good! But science! They are poles apart!
You clearly aren't a scientist.
Philosophy is very important to science, and many scientists have a specific philosophy of science.
My science is psychology and my philosophy is radical behaviorism.
The reason you may not be able to grasp how "exist" is defined within science may be because you do not have a sound and internal consistent philosophy of science. this is required to have functional definitions because any definition required some assumptions to have been established about how the world works.
Without that this conversation is as pointless as trying to explain string theory to a cat. The cat may think they know what string is, but that is not going to help.
"Exist" is a category name. Giving an exhaustive list of items within the set is an acceptable definition of a word that is a category name.
to have actual being : to be real
to continue to be or to live
I am, therefore I exist.
Plus I have an avatar, which means I am virtually real. Unlike some people...- jomineposted 12 years ago0
Physics/science is the study of objects, while philosophy deals with concepts. Objects exist, we don't assume them.
If you define exist you will understand. But philosophy is not science, and you can avoid a definition in philosophy not in science.
Kindly look up what a definition means, it is not a list of items.You seem incapable of understanding what anyone says to you.
But I will try one more time.
Things can exist without being objects.
Things that exist have causal effects on the physical world but they do not have to be physical objects to fill this role.
They can also be actions or ideas.
If you are unable to grasp that, then you are neither a scientist nor a philosopher and should abandon the attempt to understand such things.They can also be actions or ideas.
Can you understand?
Action is a verb, that need someone or something, to do.
An idea is conceived by intelligent one. Ideas has no effects, unless somebody decides to act on it. So it is only action. An action is done by one body on another through physical contact. Non-existent stuff like ideas cannot make physical contact, it need a human to do that.
"Things can exist without being objects"
Define exist without contradiction. And what is object?
"Things that exist have causal effects on the physical world but they do not have to be physical objects to fill this role"
Then please explain, what can it be, if not object.You are being circular by insisting something cannot exist without being a physical object.
I am explaining that things other than objects exist, specifically actions and ideas.
Basically you want someone to accept your invalid syllogism:
Only objects exist
Love exists
Therefore love is an object
The flaw in your syllogism is that the initial assumption because existence in terms of being a causal influence on physical reality is not limited to objects. In order for things to happen in the world you need both objects and actions--and a special class of actions are thoughts (an action of the brain) which include abstract concepts like love (which can spur human bodies to perform actions.)
You have defined you initial assumption too narrowing as in:
Cats have four legs
Fido has four legs
Therefore Fido is a cat.Did I say love exist? I was only explaining to Beelzedad, according TO HIM, love exist, hence it should be an object. Love is a concept. Concepts don't exist. Concept is conceived by an intelligent brain. Without that brain, there is no concept(whether it is love, or justice or time or energy).
If you objectively define exist then there is no confusion. It will clearly let you differentiate between a concept and object, as only objects can exist, no concepts can ever exist.
"In order for things to happen in the world you need both objects and actions-"
Things does not happen, things exist. Events happen. In order for events to occur, an object should do causal action on another object. That is, an object has to come in physical contact with another object. So it need a mediator and target object. What a mediator does to the target we call 'action'.You have decided that only objects exist (i.e. effect physical reality).
You are wrong. I have already explained that and see no point in repeating myself.
Heat, for example effects the world but is not an object. Verbally transmitted superstition effects the world (make people do things they would not otherwise have done) but is not an object."Verbally transmitted superstition effects the world (make people do things they would not otherwise have done) but is not an object."
It is not the superstition or the idea that make things happen, it is the people. A human do or don't do. A superstition is just an irrational belief. A belief can be conceived only by a human brain, that is it is just another thought. A thought make a human being do something. In the realm of physics there is no human being or thoughts!!
Uh, please don't put words in my mouth and USE ME in your fallacious defense. Thank you very much.
Please return to your regularly scheduled programming.
Causes are the -necessary- and -sufficient- conditions for bringing about a result.
In order to sacrifice a goat to a god you we need
a person
a goat
the belief that killing the goat will bring good things.
Thus the belief is a cause for the action because it is a necessary precursor and the action would not occur without it.
As specified already I consider beliefs a special class of actions--they are private actions that occur within the skin (like thoughts, memories etc).So? Does it make belief not a thought?
What human beings do is not studied by physicist. The cause of action by human beings may be belief, may reasoning..... In physics we study objects, not human beings! Human beings are just an assemblage of objects, just like a building.'If yo heap stones in orderly fashion you call it building, if not, no. That is a concept!!Humans are objects and actions. Life processes and cognition being some of those actions. I am now completely sure you are not a scientist and know almost nothing about science (and even less about philosophy). So you shouldn't be telling people who actually are scientists how to go about their business. I would guess you are maybe an early undergraduate at best. Or at least this is the kind of nonsense and woolly thinking I often see in first year essays. Try reading some of the authors that have been suggested to you.
- jomineposted 12 years ago0
When onwards a psychologist became a scientist?
Philosophy is not my topic, you can ask Beel about that.
"maybe an early undergraduate "
I finished my masters two years before!!
"Humans are objects and actions."
So nothing existed, before the first human being walked on earth?
A consistent definition means, a definition we can use irrespective of humans. In physics we deal with objects. There are no human beings or observers in physics!
And don't say "verbs" exist.You are making the same mistakes over and over. Saying all humans are objects does not imply that all objects are humans.
You need to grasp basic logic before you can understand advanced concepts.
And yes, some branches of psychology are in the domain of science. Not knowing that may explain why you have no familiarity with scientific approaches to subjective states.
And scientists do say, in the scientific context, that actions like electricity, heat, thought, radiation, gravity etc exist.
Oy."Saying all humans are objects does not imply that all objects are humans."
When you say thoughts 'exist' that is what YOU mean, as thoughts came only with humans.
"And yes, some branches of psychology are in the domain of science".
We are not explaining our universe with psychology!
"And scientists do say, in the scientific context, that actions like electricity, heat, thought, radiation, gravity etc exist."\
No scientist does that. The so called relativist may, or when they try to explain to lay men they may!
What ever you mentioned are concepts, which are used to explain object movements(mostly).[When you say thoughts 'exist' that is what YOU mean, as thoughts came only with humans.]
No. Saying thoughts exist does not imply that the only things that exist are thoughts.
[We are not explaining our universe with psychology!]
Science embraces the study of all things, including human behavior.
[No scientist does that.]
Yes, they do. Thinking heat and electricity doesn't exist is a wee bit crazy IMHO.
- jomineposted 12 years ago0
You are yet to differentiate what humans does and what occur in nature!
Thought is- to think, a verb, that is an action done by somebody. It is not actions that exist, but the one who does the action.
By your definition, love, run everything exist!
And please see a real scientist, not the relativistic idiot.Yes, and every scientist working at every particle accelerator in the world can just ignore the relativistic effects they observe every day.
ea, they are, everyday, expanding space, dilating time and contracting length, though they do not know what these are!
Yes, they do know. It is something well beyond the knowledge and understanding of the English language and the definitions of words. Keep trying.
I never said or implied that. Please don't put words in my mouth. Also please tell me what you mean by relativistic. The scientists I interact with are me, my colleagues, the regulatory bodies and the published peer-reviewed literature.
They all show the ability to understand and remember what is said to them, agree to definitions and use them consistently, and use valid logic. Failure to do these things is what I would call "idiocy".The scientists I interact with are me, my colleagues, the regulatory bodies and the published peer-reviewed literature.
Peer reviewed may do good in medicine, at least, when somebody throw a law suit at you!
Psychology is never a science! Psychiatry may be.
If you wrongly define, and claim thought exist, without knowing what it implies, then there is no science1
I officially give up on responding to this thread given OP's inability to grasp the basic concept necessary for productive scientific discourse.
Faith exists, and it’s like accusing someone who displays it as believing in something that does not exist. Wrong definition: faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for—the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld. Moreover, without the unseen faith it’s impossible to please God well. Faith means belief that he exists, and that he becomes the rewarder of those earnestly seeking him.
God has a body, a shape and a physical presence, but he is invisible. God is a spirit, those worshiping him must do so with spirit and truth, or as aforementioned a belief that he is that he exists, and that he becomes a rewarder if you seek him. Parts of this comment are words chosen, but not ambiguous, and inconsistent, no they are quotes from a higher source, the Bible.
I have friends—millions of friends—who adhere to these teachings. They are part of a worldwide brotherhood. We owe our brotherhood to Jesus calling us friends, because all the things he has heard from the Father he has made known to us.
(Hebrews 11:1, 6; John 4:24; John 15:15)If something does exist then it means that it is real in life simple as that.
To exist is to be self-aware. Man is self-aware, unlike most other creatures on this planet. Some say that dolphins, chimps, and a few others may have self-awareness, but unlike Man, they do not blush or pray to gods...
I like Camus' definition of existence: " This heart within me I can feel, and I judge that it exits. This world I can touch, and I likewise judge that it exists.There ends all my knowledge, the rest is mere construction "...
Man has the conscious power to contemplate and control his/her fate...Therefore, if we know that everyone faces death as their fate, consciousness ( existence ) equals the ability to deal with one's fate.
Related Discussions
- 420
Does energy exist?
by jomine 9 years ago
Exist is defined as having physical presence, that is having shape and location.Energy is defined as the capacity to do work.(No capacities exist, its just the ability of an object)So does energy exists?If yes can anybody draw a picture of it, as anything that exist has a shape and anything with a...
- 527
For Emile, to dodge
by jomine 11 years ago
1. God exists2. God does not exist3. Theist believe 14. Atheist believe 2[Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to betrue.]Everybody understand the first two. So I'll be the dummy who do not understand. The following are the questions1.So where is...
- 78
Can you say that time exists?
by deb douglas 14 years ago
It is proven that time stops when you are moving at the speed of light. Time as we know it on earth is a man made notion, for it is really a measurement of distance - a revolution around once. Therefore it would be relative to where you were and how fast you are moving and not at all a...
- 103
Why the GOP is obsessed with "woke" — but can't define it
by Credence2 12 months ago
A Salon article written by Amanda Marcotte asks a most pertinent question, how do conservatives reply?How do you define it?https://www.salon.com/2023/03/16/why-th … define-it/
- 26
Is heaven a real place or a state of being?
by nazishnasim 15 years ago
Hello Everyone, I joined hubpages a few days back and already loving the place. I found a topic under discussion at a website and wrote created a hub on it:http://hubpages.com/hub/Is-heaven-a-rea … e-of-beingHowever, after posting it I thought that I...
- 111
Has the science proved that the Creator-God does not exist?
by paarsurrey 12 years ago
Is it within its domain?The Creator-God is only attributive; all physical and/or spiritual things are His creation.