Can we know that something doesn't exist?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Night Ripper
 
Reply Mon 8 Mar, 2010 09:12 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;137762 wrote:
It is not only that nothing does go faster than light: is is impossible for anything to go faster than light, for if it did, relativity would be false.


I'm assuming that in this case "[it] is impossible for anything to go faster than light" means "nothing can go faster than light" but that's false.

You're committing the modal fallacy again.

Relativity can be false, but it isn't. Somethings can go faster than light, but they don't.

Read 'The' Modal Fallacy - Prof. Norman Swartz and hopefully you'll see why your argument is fallacious.
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Mon 8 Mar, 2010 09:42 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;137733 wrote:
Not at all. I think that those two things are consistent. The DN model explicates that is means for an event to be consistent with the laws of nature. It must be deducible from them together with initial conditions.
You're incorrect. For some thing to be consistent with laws of science, (specifically laws of physics, if you like), that thing need only not contradict any such law. Your claim based on the deductive nomological theory requires that all possible events are predictions of arguments that have scientific laws as premises. Quite clearly, events that are not predictions, of any argument with scientific laws as premises, routinely occur. But this is not to say that events which are inconsistent with laws of science routinely occur.
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Tue 9 Mar, 2010 12:36 am
@ughaibu,
 
Night Ripper
 
Reply Tue 9 Mar, 2010 10:51 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil. Albuquerque;137796 wrote:


You're correct that I'll never be certain that "nothing accelerates faster than the speed of light" because I won't be around forever. However, I'm already agreeing for the sake of argument that the statement "nothing ever has or ever will accelerate faster than the speed of light" is true. Taking that truth into account, it's still not true that "nothing can accelerate faster than the speed of light". It can but it won't. There's a difference.
 
Arjuna
 
Reply Tue 9 Mar, 2010 07:28 pm
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;137916 wrote:
You're correct that I'll never be certain that "nothing accelerates faster than the speed of light" because I won't be around forever. However, I'm already agreeing for the sake of argument that the statement "nothing ever has or ever will accelerate faster than the speed of light" is true. Taking that truth into account, it's still not true that "nothing can accelerate faster than the speed of light". It can but it won't. There's a difference.
Another difference: unless I'm off base, the theory you're thinking of indicates it would take an infinite amount of energy to move to the speed of light. And according to Star Trek, time would stop for the particle relative to a slower observer. So it's not that it can or won't... it's that the idea is meaningless within our present conceptions.

It's overlooked a lot... what meaningless really... means.
 
dharma bum
 
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2010 09:29 pm
@hue-man,
hue-man;131923 wrote:
Can we ever be positively (not absolutely) certain that any particular thing doesn't exist?


No, not really. The human senses are just that - human senses. I've often wondered if there are tons of animals running around that can't be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or felt, but are still there. Interesting thought.
 
north
 
Reply Mon 15 Mar, 2010 12:34 pm
@dharma bum,
dharma_bum;138507 wrote:
No, not really. The human senses are just that - human senses. I've often wondered if there are tons of animals running around that can't be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or felt, but are still there. Interesting thought.


yet the Human senses are based on the physical matter from this Universe , so that normally we would detect any animal within these parameters and so are these other animals

so far nothing new has shown up
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 15 Mar, 2010 01:54 pm
@Owen phil,
Owen;137765 wrote:
What about Wittgenstein's Tractatus...

6.37 There is no compulsion making one thing happen because another has happened. The only necessity that exists is logical necessity.

6.375 Just as the only necessity that exists is logical necessity, so too the only impossibility that exists is logical impossibility.


Well, what about it? If there is physical impossibility, then W. is mistaken. I imagine that is not only logically possible, but also psychologically possible. No person is infallible.
 
north
 
Reply Mon 15 Mar, 2010 02:53 pm
@kennethamy,
we know that in the Universe absolute nothing does not exist
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 15 Mar, 2010 03:37 pm
@north,
north;140002 wrote:
we know that in the Universe absolute nothing does not exist


You mean that something does exist, namely, the universe.
 
north
 
Reply Mon 15 Mar, 2010 03:45 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;140013 wrote:
You mean that something does exist, namely, the universe.


yes , absolutely
 
de Silentio
 
Reply Tue 16 Mar, 2010 06:41 pm
@Ding an Sich,
Ding_an_Sich;132814 wrote:
I could however do the phenomenology of a unicorn but its existence is unknown to me (and I most certainly dont care about its existence). Just a thought. :-o


Phenomenologically, that unicorn you speak of exists as an object of your conscious thought and is thereby known to you. It's known and exists in a different way than, say, this book next to me, but it does exists.

If all conscious thought is composed of an Act, a Content, and an Identical Object in a relationship, then the conscious relationship You have with said unicorn is also composed of an Act, Content, and Identical Object. It seems to me that the content is known to you, an thus the unicorn's existence is known to you.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2010 06:44 am
@de Silentio,
de Silentio;140407 wrote:
Phenomenologically, that unicorn you speak of exists as an object of your conscious thought and known to you. It's known and exists in a different way than, say, this book next to me, but it does exists.

If all conscious thought is composed of an Act, a Content, and an Identical Object in a relationship, then the conscious relationship You have with said unicorn is also composed of an Act, Content, and Identical Object. It seems to me that the content is known to you, an thus the unicorn's existence is known to you.


So, if I think of the Spaghetti Monster, it thereby exists? What a wonderful way to create anything you like! I am going to try to work it with a billion dollars, and take it to the bank. Want to come along. Should I deposit it by the ATM do you think? I don't care if it "exists in a different way" just as long as I can spend it. And if I cannot spend it, then why should I care about it existing in a different way? I think by "exists in a different way", all you mean is that it does not exist, but that you are thinking about it. Right?
 
Night Ripper
 
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2010 06:49 am
@de Silentio,
de Silentio;140407 wrote:
Phenomenologically, that unicorn you speak of exists as an object of your conscious thought and known to you. It's known and exists in a different way than, say, this book next to me, but it does exists.


No it doesn't. The concept of a unicorn exists. A unicorn does not exist.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2010 07:02 am
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;140530 wrote:
No it doesn't. The concept of a unicorn exists. A unicorn does not exist.


Concepts, objects, words, things; just navel-gazing. And, if unicorns don't exist in one way, well, they exist in another way. What's the difference? Just as long as they exist. Phenomenologically is better than nothing. Don't be so greedy.
 
Night Ripper
 
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2010 07:13 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;140535 wrote:
Concepts, objects, words, things


I love this game. Which one doesn't belong, right? Oh, I've got it. "Words" doesn't belong because "concepts", "objects" and "things" are similar but many different words can relate to similar or identical concepts.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2010 07:18 am
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;140539 wrote:
I love this game. Which one doesn't belong, right? Oh, I've got it. "Words" doesn't belong because "concepts", "objects" and "things" are similar but many different words can relate to similar or identical concepts.


I did not quite have that in mind. What I had in mind is that just as there is a big difference between concepts and objects, so there is a big difference between words and things. And that it makes a big difference whether a concept of object exists, and it makes as big a difference whether a word or thing exists.
 
Night Ripper
 
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2010 07:21 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;140540 wrote:
I did not quite have that in mind. What I had in mind is that just as there is a big difference between concepts and objects, so there is a big difference between words and things. And that it makes a big difference whether a concept of object exists, and it makes as big a difference whether a word or thing exists.


That's nice and all but how does it directly relate to what I said? Are you saying that concepts don't exist? Are you saying that the concept of a unicorn doesn't exist? What exactly is it that you are trying to prove by calling something navel-gazing?

kennethamy;140535 wrote:
And, if unicorns don't exist in one way, well, they exist in another way. What's the difference?


There is a big difference and it seems you are getting annoyed and being abrasive because you think I meant to imply the difference was trivial. Well, that's your mistake. I never implied that.

The difference between the existence of a concept and the instantiation of a concept is very important and very practical. The concept of a sandwich cannot fill your belly. An instantiation of the concept of a sandwich can.

I'm sure you'll find some way to miss the point as usual but let's stop acting like I'm saying something outrageous.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2010 07:38 am
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;140543 wrote:
That's nice and all but how does it directly relate to what I said? Are you saying that concepts don't exist? Are you saying that the concept of a unicorn doesn't exist? What exactly is it that you are trying to prove by calling something navel-gazing?



There is a big difference and it seems you are getting annoyed and being abrasive because you think I meant to imply the difference was trivial. Well, that's your mistake. I never implied that.

The difference between the existence of a concept and the instantiation of a concept is very important and very practical. The concept of a sandwich cannot fill your belly. An instantiation of the concept of a sandwich can.

I'm sure you'll find some way to miss the point as usual but let's stop acting like I'm saying something outrageous.


It is a pain to explain this, but I have been being, s-a-r-c-a-s-t-c. I agree with you.
 
de Silentio
 
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2010 12:43 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;140527 wrote:
So, if I think of the Spaghetti Monster, it thereby exists? What a wonderful way to create anything you like! I am going to try to work it with a billion dollars, and take it to the bank. Want to come along. Should I deposit it by the ATM do you think? I don't care if it "exists in a different way" just as long as I can spend it. And if I cannot spend it, then why should I care about it existing in a different way? I think by "exists in a different way", all you mean is that it does not exist, but that you are thinking about it. Right?


Maybe you should try to be a little less condescending. It is not very becoming nor a good way to represent this community.

Yes, phenomenologically if I think of the Spaghetti Monster, it exists as an object in a different way as the book that I am looking at. Just as the book I am currently looking at exists in a different way than than this other book that I am remembering. Do you deny that the things in my memories exists as objects of my thought? Like I said in my post, thought is composed of Act -> Content -> Object... Always. You cannot have an Act without a Content, nor a Content without and Act, nor a Content without an Object.

In phenomenology we speak of conscious relationships with objects, different objects have different types of relationships, or in phenomenological jargon, different ways of intending.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 06/23/2021 at 12:03:03