everything exists

@alex717,

Quote:

And my saying you can't sustain your imagination, means you might think of something, but it doesn't keep going, once you stop it's gone

This is an assumption, but lets go with it. The same is true of the 'real' world... while you aren't perceiving it you can't say it's still there; it might exist only while being perceived.

Quote:

this ties further into, your mortal, therefore could not be absolute.

'your mortal' is a great assumption. Firstly you assume that because everyone seems die in this world you may be imagining anyway, you are therefore also going to die. Secondly even if you die that doesn't mean your mind won't live on. Plus I don't see the logic following from 'your mortal' to 'therefore could not be absolute'.

Quote:

And now, instead of the original argument over whether thinking something in your head is real, you want to call an audible and try to say everything could be imaginary in our lives, because we would be the center of everything.

The argument was over whether or not everything exists not whether it is real. Yes, it exists in our minds.

Quote:

This wouldn't make it real, unless you were absolute, and if you think you are absolute then why would you be mortal?

You give me a good definition of 'real' and show how this doesn't fit with it. And again the same assumptions as earlier.

Quote:

That kind of thinking, becomes very Nihilistic, remember this isn't some pseudo forum, I know you guys just registered, there is a point when you need to stay on an argument, promote it with reason, and when it's been concluded, move on. If you change things midway, please at least show what your changing, and state it clearly.

I don't really understand what you're saying here?

Quote:

That is a contradiction, and is, therefore, false.

Um, that last quote was by someone else but anyway THAT is an assumption if ever I saw one! A contradiction must be false? Why?

But anyway I must be sad writing this on christmas morning haha I'll go down to my family now. Merry Christmas everyone!

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

That is a contradiction, and is, therefore, false. Of course, the answer to what exists is, everything. But more detail is needed.

I say that everything exists in the same sense that I say "If Event A has occurred, then Event A is possible." If something is a thing, then by virtue of being a 'thing,' it must exist. And the word 'everything' by definition encompasses all 'things'. Therefore everything exists.

I say that nothing exists because I adhere to the subjective idealist philosophy that the external world (outside of the mind) is a creation of the mind, and does not exist independently of the mind. If a tree falls in a forest, it won't make a sound, because sound does not exist. Only the perception of the phenomenon that we call sound exists.

I did not contradict myself, I am just using the word 'exist' in different contexts, which gives the word a different meaning.

I do disagree with you in saying that contradiction necessitates falsity, though: "The next sentence is false. The previous sentence is true."
The statements contradict each other, but can you prove to me that they are false?

@lakeshoredrive,

lakeshoredrive wrote:

"The next sentence is false. The previous sentence is true."
The statements contradict each other, but can you prove to me that they are false?

Logical Rule apply to this argument:
One thing can not be itself and not itself in the same argument.

Example:
Friday is not Wednesday
P1 Today is Friday. [if this premise is true]
P2 Today is Wednesday. [then this premise is false]
P3 Today is Friday and Wednesday [valid but unsound argument]

hot is not cold
P1 Fire is hot. [if this premise is true]
P2 Fire is cold. [then this premise is false]
P3 Fire is Hot and Cold [valid but unsound argument]

Let us assume: A="The next statement is true."
Let us assume: B="The previous statement is false."

Logical symbols [improvised due to limitation of software here]:A" and "B" in logical symbols:

P1 A → B [if A true then B ought to be true]
P2 B → nA [if B true then A ought to be false]
P3 A = nA [therefore A is not A - logical fallacy]
OR
P3 A ≠ A [contradiction]

Hoverever, if we change the structure of the first premise

Let us assume: A1="The next statement is false."
Let us assume: B="The previous statement is false."

P1 A1 → nB [if A1 true then B ought to be false]
P2 nB → A1 [if B false then A1 ought to be true]
P3 A1 = A1 [therefore A1 is A1 - valid and sound argument]

Thanks
democritus

@democritus,

The statment "everything exists" is a tautology because to be a thing is to exist. :bigsmile:

@lakeshoredrive,

lakeshoredrive wrote:

I say that nothing exists because I adhere to the subjective idealist philosophy that the external world (outside of the mind) is a creation of the mind, and does not exist independently of the mind.

Do you honestly believe this?

@Kielicious,

If the external world is entirely a creation of the mind, it follows that, when you watch a Shakespeare play or listen to a Beethoven symphony, you are composing it all yourself. That is to say, the entire content of it is thought up by you. Is that plausible?

What determines the precise nature of the sensations and thoughts that we have? Why are some of these painful or unwelcome, if we create them entirely ourselves? If everything is in the mind, why do we call some perceptions 'real' and others 'imaginary'? Does idealism have adequate answers to these questions?

@autumnramc,

autumnramc wrote:

How does one think of something that doesn't exist? If we think of anything that doesn't exist how do we even think about it? Is anything truly real or are we all just creating worlds in our minds? And, if that were true, this that you are reading now is this that your mind created.

The existent can be spoken, the nonexistent cannot be spoken. Notionally, anything can exist. Therefore, when you think of it, you've made it exist.

Asking if anything is real will require you to make your own judgment. There are dozens of theories. Here are a few to get you started (I'm not advocating to stop any one's notion - these are just to jolt your thinking)

Plato: There are two realms, there is the physical world given to us by our senses, and there is an ideal realm intelligible only to the intellect. The only reality most people know is nothing more than an illusion, a dream.

Pyrrho: 1.) Nothing exists 2.) If it did, we couldn't know it 3.) If we knew it, we couldn't communicate it

Berkeley: Denounced entirely the reality of matter, or indeed anything outside of a mind. To be is to be: existence was mere occurence to a mind, being the object of a mind.

Moore: Attempted to prove the reality of the world not in the mind by holding up one hand and saying, "This is a hand!".

It's a big shitshow and you're welcome to join whenever you like :flowers:

@Zetherin,

To quote a President, "it depends on what you mean by is."

I would say that everything (all) exists, but no thing exists.

Aside: To claim that comments like these are tautological misses the point; all logic concludes in tautology. Thus, logically speaking, logic is illogical. If you can't bear a tautology, don't think. (good luck!) :a-ok:

Philosophy Forum

everything exists

Quick Links

My Account

able2know