What's Possible...

[Icarus Fallen]

...existentially?

Question(s) for Debate: ( )

Is it 'possible' that X exists, if, in fact, X doesn't exist?

In other words: does the actuality WRT the existence of certain theoretical entities (namely those that don't actually exist) negate the mere possibility that they do?

[tar2]

"Q) MBR notwithstanding, in what way is the current existence of X a matter of perspective? "

Your current is separated from my current. In a sense, Icarus Fallen is the oldest thing in the universe. Every image you receive is from a past event.

Regards, TAR

[Icarus Fallen]

T2,

Well perhaps, but that is because I attribute my consciousness to the very fact that I am a separate and distinct "aspect" of reality, that has a particular limited view from a very particular place and time. [emphasis IF's]

I appreciate your use of the terms I've highlighted (specifically the implied understanding that they're not analytically synonymous), but while I agree that you're factually distinct, I think the word "fact" is a bit too strong where the notion of your "separateness" is concerned.

Think of a single length of string that's been folded in half. The halves are, in fact, distinct from each other, but that doesn't mean they're separated. So long as their connection at the fold remains intact, they're simply aspects of a common object: namely a folded piece of string.

...And I give great credit to life's accomplishments on this planet, and owe all to the evolution that crafted and passed on this human pattern to me. Different and distinct from the universe (while obviously being 100% universe material). A separate object, a separate entity, whose job it is to be separate, and maintain and pass on the unique pattern.

"Different and distinct", yes; "a separate object, a separate entity, whose job it is to be separate", no.

So I am not sure if we are saying the same thing, or if the disconnection that I presume is responsible for our consciousness, is not the prerequisite you are talking about.

Not only do you presume that "the disconnection" is responsible for consciousness; you also presume (or infer) the disconnection itself.

...I am guessing that I took "the appearance of autonomy" as "autonomy comes on the scene" where you might mean it as "what we think is autonomy". <...> If so, that is probably why I don't understand it, I am convinced I am autonomous.

Well, I'm convinced otherwise.

I think I definitely consider I perceive objective autonomy, and I infer my connection to the universe.

Look more closely, T.

By virtue of discovery in the fields of macroscopic and microscopic technologies, we now know of aspects of reality that were once the stuff of pure conjecture. We know, as well, that any of our ancestors who denied the existence of those aspects on the grounds that they couldn't be seen ...were wrong. The inability to perceive something isn't equivalent to the assumption that it doesn't exist, but those who draw existential conclusions from their perceptual limitations are guilty of fallaciously appealing to invisibility. That you don't perceive a material connection between many phenomenal apparitions ...doesn't mean it isn't there. That's why your belief in material disconnectivity must be inferred from what you do perceive.

[Icarus Fallen]

T2,

Your current is separated from my current.

That's an assumption based on your own interpretation of the available evidence.

In my view, my current and your current ...are concurrent. That is, I see the present moment as a shared property from which all aspectual occurrences originate and emanate outward.

In a sense, Icarus Fallen is the oldest thing in the universe. Every image you receive is from a past event.

Granting that every image I receive in the present originated in the past, it doesn't necessarily follow that my existence (as a temporal aspect of the eternal universe) preceded the origination of any given image.

Without question, most of the images I see in the night sky are older aspects ...by far.

[tar2]

Icarus Fallen,

By "oldest" thing in the universe, I mean that your evolution from big bang, thru star generations and elemental creation, earth formation, primordial soup, single cell...Icarus Fallen's mom, Icarus Fallen, has taken 13.73xxxxxxxxxx... Billion years. There is nothing, anywhere in the universe, that is even a nano second older than you. Nothing, you are at the leading edge, the future has not happened yet, anywhere, to any aspect of the universe. Oops well there its gone and happened, and NOW, you are STILL the last thing that happened. The current moment for you consists of the waves coming in from all quarters, images, and impulses all, of past events.

So what is this X exists based on? This either does or doesn't?
It matters when, and it matters to whom.

And a plant does not care much about the what photons the Sun is "currently" emitting. It uses the ones the Sun emitted 7 seconds ago. It uses the ones that hit its leaves. Those, are the current ones.

[tar2]

Icarus Fallen,

But there is nothing that has happened yet, after you and your constituent's 13.73xxxxxxxxx... billion year old moment.

Regards, TAR

[tar2]

Sorry for the short post, I am regrouping, I lost a good post to the invisible magic button. Will try again another time.

[tar2]

Icarus Fallen,

"Is it 'possible' that X exists, if, in fact, X doesn't exist?"

I would say no.

But there are two areas of further questioning that come to my mind, in thinking about the question.

One is the idea of now, or presently or currently.
The other is the question of "to whom?".

Theists believe in a point of view (God's) that can know all things that exist, everywhere, past, present and future.

Icarus Fallens believe in a point of view that can assess all real things in one glance. Within this view X either exists or it does not exist, whether or not a human can experience it. This "truth" exists. This reality of "all things" exists, independent of human involvement.

Then there is the human brain, the human consciousness, that internalizes the external world, stimulus at a time, that builds an internal, analog version of the external world, on which to operate.

And along with the ability to model the outside world, humans have the ability to build working models, imagining how changing this or that varible might effect the model of the thing and hence imagine how such a variable might effect the "real" external thing.

Closely related to these abilities are the ability to conceive of an unseen other and the ability to put oneself in another's shoes.

Then we have language. Words and symbols with which to operate on whole classes of things at once. The ability to "think" and the ability to communicate thoughts.

Then we have society, which has established and maintained unversities and churches, corporations, courts, and governments to pass on the collective thoughts about and experiences of the real world, that millions of humans, generation after generation, have had.

It is within this context that I look at the question "does X, in fact, exist".

If it exists in my memory, or in my imagination, or if I have a model of it built by equation or styrofoam balls on my desk, does that count?

If a group of people all experience it, and have a name for it, and interact with it, and consider it real, does that count? For instance, the border between Canada and the U.S., does that exist?

Or the closest visible galaxy, 2.4 million ly from Earth. Does that exist? It certainly must have evolved in 2.4 million years, turned around, changed shape, grown or shrunk, spawned some new stars, blown up a few stars, black holes eating up materials and all.

Which galaxy exists for you. The one you see, or the "current" one you imagine?

Regards, TAR

[Icarus Fallen]

T2,

"Is it 'possible' that X exists, if, in fact, X doesn't exist?" [...]I would say no. [...]But there are two areas of further questioning that come to my mind, in thinking about the question. [...]One is the idea of now, or presently or currently.[...]The other is the question of "to whom?".

Funny, I see the phrasing of the question as completely non-ambiguous, in that all of the issues involved are restricted the present tense and ultimately to the factuality surrounding X's existential status.

I'm not inquiring as to the possibility of X's existence in someone's imagination in the past; I'm talking about a present state of affairs that actually obtains (the factual non-existence of X) and of its bearing on the matter of the mere possibility of X's existence in the here and now.

It seems that you and I are in agreement that possibilities are contingent on actualities, because I, too, "would say no" in answer to the quoted question.

Our agreement in that regard carries some heavy implicit baggage. After all, in line with the relevant observation, not only should theists be hesitant to make claims involving the objective existence of their preferred god; they should also be reticent to positively affirm the mere possibility of said existence. That's a pretty big deal, in this (pan)theist's humble opinion!

Icarus Fallens believe in a point of view that can assess all real things in one glance.

No, Within this view X either exists or it does not exist, whether or not a human can experience it. This "truth" exists. This reality of "all things" exists, independent of human involvement.[/quote]



Then there is the human brain, the human consciousness, that internalizes the external world, stimulus at a time, that builds an internal, analog version of the external world, on which to operate.

And along with the ability to model the outside world, humans have the ability to build working models, imagining how changing this or that varible might effect the model of the thing and hence imagine how such a variable might effect the "real" external thing.

Closely related to these abilities are the ability to conceive of an unseen other and the ability to put oneself in another's shoes.

Then we have language. Words and symbols with which to operate on whole classes of things at once. The ability to "think" and the ability to communicate thoughts.

Then we have society, which has established and maintained unversities and churches, corporations, courts, and governments to pass on the collective thoughts about and experiences of the real world, that millions of humans, generation after generation, have had.

It is within this context that I look at the question "does X, in fact, exist".

If it exists in my memory, or in my imagination, or if I have a model of it built by equation or styrofoam balls on my desk, does that count?

If a group of people all experience it, and have a name for it, and interact with it, and consider it real, does that count? For instance, the border between Canada and the U.S., does that exist?

Or the closest visible galaxy, 2.4 million ly from Earth. Does that exist? It certainly must have evolved in 2.4 million years, turned around, changed shape, grown or shrunk, spawned some new stars, blown up a few stars, black holes eating up materials and all.

Which galaxy exists for you. The one you see, or the "current" one you imagine?

[/quote]

But there is nothing that has happened yet, after you and your constituent's 13.73xxxxxxxxx... billion year old moment.

[Icarus Fallen]

T2,

"Is it 'possible' that X exists, if, in fact, X doesn't exist?" [...]I would say no. [...]But there are two areas of further questioning that come to my mind, in thinking about the question. [...]One is the idea of now, or presently or currently.[...]The other is the question of "to whom?".

Funny, I see the phrasing of the question as completely non-ambiguous, in that all of the issues involved are restricted to the present tense and ultimately to the factuality surrounding X's existential status.

I'm not inquiring as to the possibility of X's existence in someone's imagination in the past; I'm talking about a present state of affairs that actually obtains (the factual non-existence of X) and of its bearing on the matter of the possibility of X's existence in the here and now.

It seems that you and I are in agreement that possibilities are contingent on actualities, because I, too, "would say no" in answer to the quoted question.

Our agreement in that regard carries some heavy implicit baggage. After all, in line with the relevant observation, not only should theists be hesitant to make claims involving the objective existence of their preferred god; they should also be reluctant to positively affirm the mere possibility of said existence. That's a pretty big deal, in this (pan)theist's humble opinion!

Icarus Fallens believe in a point of view that can assess all real things in one glance.

No, I believe in many points of view (each with its own set of unique and common limitations), from which the universe sensually experiences and interacts ...with itself.

Yes, in my view, the whole shebang is purely masturbatory in nature.

Within this view X either exists or it does not exist, whether or not a human can experience it. This "truth" exists. This reality of "all things" exists, independent of human involvement.

I hope you'll allow me the liberty of bracketed interpolation, since it is my view you're trying to characterize:

"Within this view X either exists or it does not exist [as a temporal aspect of an eternally-existent object], whether or not a human [who is such an "aspect"] can experience it. This "truth" exists. This reality of "all [temporally-existent] things [being aspects of a common eternally-existent singularity] exists, independent of human [knowledge]..."

Then there is the human brain, the human consciousness, that internalizes the external world, stimulus at a time, that builds an internal, analog version of the external world, on which to operate. [...]And along with the ability to model the outside world, humans have the ability to build working models, imagining how changing this or that varible might effect the model of the thing and hence imagine how such a variable might effect the "real" external thing. [...]Closely related to these abilities are the ability to conceive of an unseen other and the ability to put oneself in another's shoes. [...]Then we have language. Words and symbols with which to operate on whole classes of things at once. The ability to "think" and the ability to communicate thoughts. [...]Then we have society, which has established and maintained unversities and churches, corporations, courts, and governments to pass on the collective thoughts about and experiences of the real world, that millions of humans, generation after generation, have had.

It is within this context that I look at the question "does X, in fact, exist".

Many aspects of existence have come to light in the course of human evolution. As for any aspect whose 'existence' preceded human discovery, the previous state of human ignorance was obviously a shaky ground for denial. This acknowledgment renders the "context" of humanity a dubious standard, at least where questions of existence beyond the present field of human perception are concerned.

If it exists in my memory, or in my imagination, or if I have a model of it built by equation or styrofoam balls on my desk, does that count?

As an imaginative model, certainly.

As an actuality beyond the realm of mere conjecture, not necessarily.

If a group of people all experience it, and have a name for it, and interact with it, and consider it real, does that count? For instance, the border between Canada and the U.S., does that exist?

As an agreed upon geographical delineation, absolutely.

Or the closest visible galaxy, 2.4 million ly from Earth. Does that exist?

As a presently visible image that was recorded and projected 2.4 million years ago, yes.

As a currently-existent galaxy, not necessarily.

[...]It certainly must have evolved in 2.4 million years, turned around, changed shape, grown or shrunk, spawned some new stars, blown up a few stars, black holes eating up materials and all. [...]Which galaxy exists for you. The one you see, or the "current" one you imagine?

The galaxy exists ...or it doesn't.

The evidence of its past existence is just that.

Whether or not it continues to exist ...is a matter of speculation.

[LiamOS]

How is existence defined for this discussion?