I thought I'd ask a classical question: What is? Basically, what exists?

...what exists?

I find that it's often easier to stay what doesn't exist.

Everything exists.
Existence is context (duality).
In the appropriate context, the particular Perspective, everything exists.
That is the complete 'set'. Any discrimination


You cannot name/say anything that doesn't exist. If you can imagine/think/dream/say it, it exists (in that context)!

Mermaids do not exist.
Five-sided triangles cannot exist.

Perhaps if you read my post a bit more carefully.
Mermaids exist in your mind, in literature, in poetry, in dreams, in paintings and sculpture... get it yet?
A "five-sided triangle", even if nowhere else, exists as three words between the quotes in this sentence, and in your attempted refutation.
Everything exists in/as context. Whatever example you might offer will only go to 'prove' my point. It 'exists' in your argument. The point that you have failed to grasp is 'context/Perspective'.
There is no refutation possible.
Everything exists! That is the one complete set.
Any discrimination that you might imagine is (vanity) a 'subset' contained within the 'complete set'. There are many 'subsets'.

No, I don't get it, not yet, not ever.

Well, then, I won't waste any more of either of our time.

nameless out

Everything exists.
Existence is context (duality).
In the appropriate context, the particular Perspective, everything exists.
That is the One complete 'set'.


You cannot name/say anything that doesn't exist. If you can imagine/think/dream/say it, it exists (in that context)!

Humanoid Robots and small children. Same thing, really except humanoid robots eat vegetables.

"Sense-perception isn't the only way we are aware of things too. There are other ways: by second account (history), by the effects of, philosophy, et alli. An example of "by the effects of" could be souind waves or black holes."

I'm willing to dispute this. We are aware by second account, effects of, and philosophy, but each of these is not a way that stands apart from sense-perception because all of these are not in opposition or beside sense-perception, but actually involve or depend upon sense-perception.

I like the word subnatural and the definition is thought provoking. How do you relate the concept of subnatural with the concept of "man-made"? I don't like hyphens.

I'd say I don't believe in the supernatural, but some people do and I'm less willing to dispute that. Actually, to be clever I would put the supernatural circle inside the subnatural circle to express my belief that supernatural things don't exist outside the realm of theoretical inventions

---------- Post added at 02:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:34 PM ----------

So what does everyone think about modern metaphysics and quantum physics which states that nothing exists?

---------- Post added at 03:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:34 PM ----------

But I explained why I don't get it. It is because you are confusing two different things.

No, you are imagining two different things that i do not accept as inherently different.
Nevertheless, your definition of existence, and what 'isn't', remains a (valid) 'subset' of my complete definitional set.
Any 'distinctions' are Perspective based 'subsets'; valid Perspectives (contextually), but 'subsets'.
All subsets (Perspectives) are valid, but remain subsets of the 'complete set'.
That's all ffffolks!!!

Peace

You think that a picture of the Eiffel Tower, or a statue of the Eiffel Tower, is the same as the Eiffel Tower, and that if the Eiffel Tower was destroyed, and no longer existed, the picture or the statue of the Eiffel Tower would then become the Eiffel Tower?

Hmmm.

First off, there are obviously physical things which exist.

Everything that you named, exists. Simple.
Your attempt at misusing my logic is an ineffectual attempt at refutation, and fails.
You cannot refute the fact of the complete set of "everything exists".
It is irrefutable.

Im willing to take the (rather unpopular) position of claiming that: Nothing exists.
In my opinion, we have no empirical evidence that would claim that anything exist, have existed or ever will exist. Neither do we have any empirical evidence that says there is anything but the Self (or whatever you might want to call the concept); none for supernatural.

The mistakes I think you do in your first post, Ichthus91, is:
"Obvious" isnt the word I`d use. There might be physical things which exist, but I think that you are closer with your next line on conceptual existence. To claim that something exist at all, should be merely conceptual like an idea, not as a real physical representation of an object which would be completely false.

The weakness of our sense-perception is so strong (quite ironical, isnt it?) that it can be manipulated by the simplest idea

If there is anything in existence at all; I would dare to claim it to be merely transcendental. But we dont know now, do we? :devilish:

I also think this is what nameless (great nick btw) and kennethamy is going around about. As I understood their little fight, nameless is claiming that everything exist when it enters the mind? In other words: If you think of a mermaid == its there.
Seems like some absurd way of taking a nihilistic stand on metaphysics to me (but as always: I might be wrong).

kennethamy on the other side seem to claim everything on pure empirical views, and are basically saying that if it isnt there == it doesnt exist.

Please let me know if I have viewed this little fight of yours wrongly.

(I think that is what "obvious" means. Don't you)?

If we have no evidence that anything exists (and I certainly disagree with that) that does not mean that nothing exists. What that means is that we don't (and perhaps, cannot) know that anything exits.

But I did not say that things exist only if we have empirical evidence that they exist ... All I said is that we have loads of empirical evidence ... And that makes it obvious that elephant and buildings exist.

A and B are not the same thing just because both exist.

No, I dont. Because pure empirical evidence is not something we can rely on, because it can so easily be manipulated and modified. Just because we think we know its there, doesnt mean it exist.

You are absolutely right. We do not know, hence, we cannot say that it is obvious. Because it isnt.
Indeed we do have lots of empirical evidence; but that cant (again) conclude so obviously that the representation is real. You are quite contradictory:

I dont mean to be rude, and I mean this with all possible respect and decency:
Try som 2C-B and tell me if your pink, dancing, ballet elephant is real just because your empirical evidence says so, and then tell me how obvious it really is.