you can't see it, it does not exist.

@Fido,

Fido;90135 wrote:

Just the opposite... The first lesson every child learns is that though it may not be seen, it still exists, like a mother leaving the room...Why children do not think, if they do not think, that there are multitudes of identical mothers beyond their doors I do not know... Sooner or later they just know that the disappeared along with the unappearent may both exist, and for that reason children more easily buy into magic and often take council of their fears...

My granddaughter (age 3) hides her eyes with her hands, and thinks I have disappeared. I suppose she is an anomaly. Or, your theory is false. Maybe both of us ought to read about it in studies by child psychologists, and not guess.

@kennethamy,

If we didn't know the effects of gravity would it exist? EVERYTHING exist semantically in our minds and in the physical universe. If you want it to exist it will exist, it shows how powerful our species is. If it does not have force or an effect then obviously its an illusion but you need to define your version of existence, phycological or physical? I believe its both, whatever makes you keep striving in life.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;90644 wrote:

My granddaughter (age 3) hides her eyes with her hands, and thinks I have disappeared. I suppose she is an anomaly. Or, your theory is false. Maybe both of us ought to read about it in studies by child psychologists, and not guess.

Are you sure??? Maybe she thinks she has disappeared...It is hard to get a good story out of small children, but even children who suffer separation anxiety manage when their folks go to the can...It could be that we teach such games by our reaction, and they think we are being as foolish as they... You need to find some one who knows to ask...

@I am question,

I am question;90694 wrote:

If we didn't know the effects of gravity would it exist?.

Of course. Before Newton, no one had even heard of the concept of gravity. But apples still fell to the ground. What would make you think that when we never heard of gravity it did not exist? Another example. In the middle ages, the concept of germ had not yet been invented. But people still got sick, and germs were the cause.

@awoelt,

Uhuh and we found cures to these germs too and we will go on to find more cures, they say a lot of medicine and new stuff can be found all the time especially in nature.

@Caroline,

---------- Post added 09-18-2009 at 08:02 PM ----------

Here is something a person wrote that I think is important to consider. (Not sure who authored the statement).

Quote:

I used to think that things like rocks and buildings and my own skeleton were fairly solid. But they're made up of atoms, and atoms contain so little actual material that they can barely be said to exist.

Also this from Einstein:

Quote:

Proportionately, there is more space between an atom's nucleus and its first electron than between the Sun and Pluto!

So considering that The universe is likely more (ALOT more) empty space then physical material, its almost like its a huge flashing sign thats telling us to study what "isn't" other then what "is". Just a thought.

@Joe,

Joe;91543 wrote:

---------- Post added 09-18-2009 at 08:02 PM ----------

So considering that The universe is likely more (ALOT more) empty space then physical material, its almost like its a huge flashing sign thats telling us to study what "isn't" other then what "is". Just a thought.

But what would that have to do with the issue of the thread, namely that the existence of something depends on whether it is known to exist?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;91558 wrote:

But what would that have to do with the issue of the thread, namely that the existence of something depends on whether it is known to exist?

Well I guess my issue lies in what are the boundaries of existing and not existing. I know thats not namely the OP's question. I just Have more question's upon questions from all different compartments, on the idea of Existence. I AM QUESTION mentioned in the thread:

Quote:

If we didn't know the effects of gravity would it exist? EVERYTHING exist semantically in our minds and in the physical universe. If you want it to exist it will exist, it shows how powerful our species is. If it does not have force or an effect then obviously its an illusion but you need to define your version of existence, phycological or physical? I believe its both, whatever makes you keep striving in life.

This seems like a good breakdown on the question between observing and actuality. I like this approach to looking at the OP's question. Aren't there Scientists saying that when you approach Quantum theory research, they think that alot of the results are merely do to observation? If thats true, then it seems like bridging the gap between our minds and what is outside (?) of it, may have more connection to what we perceive as real then thought.

I dunno though, I'm not Mr.scientist and so I probably need to familiarize myself with Space and Time before I try to even explain my thoughts.

@Joe,

Joe;91569 wrote:

Well I guess my issue lies in what are the boundaries of existing and not existing.

I don't understand what that issue might be. Horses do exist, and unicorns don't. What "boundaries" are you talking about? Of course, we may not know whether or not something exists. But that is a different matter. There is no limbo (I have ever heard of) in which something hovers between existing and not existing.

@awoelt,

What is the status of something that is "discovered" say like "quarks".
They did not "exist" before discovery? and now they "do"?
or even say the ruins of the ancient city of Troy?
it comes into existence when it is discovered?
Our knowledge or perception of "it" seems to be in a different category than "exists".
?

@awoelt,

awoelt;40127 wrote:

yeah. the title sounds atheist, but it has nothing to do with go.

I have been thinking, If noone can see something that is not doing anything, does it exist at the moment. Like maybe that grass on your lawn right now. I bet no one is looking at. So is your lawn really there? what do u think?

If you could state this such that the negations are in their proper places, I might feel more confident that I understood you.

What you are asking, which has been asked for a long time, is very simple minded--if a particular thing is not influencing another thing, then why say that either of them exists?

Plato actually tried to make a point about this in logic, can one ascribe the relative difference between two terms to either of the terms? It is commonly done as part of common grammar all of the time, indicating that the speaker has no idea what they are saying.

One Platonic source is, the dialog in the prison the day Socrates drank the poisen.

The grass may as well ask, if you do not see it, do you exist? What non-sense.

The error is perpetrated even in science. We say that a car is traveling, say, 50 miles per hour. Is this true? Can one ascribe the relative difference between terms to either term? No. It is errant thinking.

@awoelt,

If you never look for the invisable you never do the impossible...

@prothero,

prothero;93685 wrote:

What is the status of something that is "discovered" say like "quarks".
They did not "exist" before discovery? and now they "do"?
or even say the ruins of the ancient city of Troy?
it comes into existence when it is discovered?
Our knowledge or perception of "it" seems to be in a different category than "exists".
?

No, nothing can be discovered unless is exists. That is what "discover" means.

---------- Post added 09-29-2009 at 04:49 PM ----------

awoelt;40127 wrote:

So is your lawn really there? what do u think?

If my lawn was not there when I did not see it, then why in the world do I have to cut it now?

@awoelt,

Thinking this way isn't practical at all, but for philosophy everyone seems to find it necessary to doubt anything not exhaustively supported or proven.:brickwall: Honestly, nothing is absolutely true; truth is scalar. Anything called true is really just applicably true. Just like temperature, it has no upper limit, but has a lower limit.

So why do people think god exists? Because they use that term 'god' to describe the person (or thing) that created us. To me, god can be such a vague concept that you really can't disprove it or discuss it.

@Leonard,

Leonard;94332 wrote:

Thinking this way isn't practical at all, but for philosophy everyone seems to find it necessary to doubt anything not exhaustively supported or proven.:brickwall: Honestly, nothing is absolutely true; truth is scalar. Anything called true is really just applicably true. Just like temperature, it has no upper limit, but has a lower limit.

So why do people think god exists? Because they use that term 'god' to describe the person (or thing) that created us. To me, god can be such a vague concept that you really can't disprove it or discuss it.

When you say that nothing is absolutely true, do you (perhaps) really mean that nothing is known for certain to be true? People often confuse being certain that something is true, and something being true. After all, it can be true that there are extraterrestrials somewhere without anyone being certain, or even knowing, that is true. And, so, if, for instance. you are saying that no one is certain (beyond all possible doubt) that the Sun is about 93 million miles from Earth, that is, I think, true. But that of course does not mean that when I state that the Sun is 93 million miles from Earth that I am not stating something true, does it? Again, even if it is true that no one can prove (or disprove) that God exists, and so, no one can be certain of either one, that does not mean that it is not true that God exists (or is not true that God does not exist). Truth is very different from certainty, and they should not be confused.

@kennethamy,

Everybody here seems to be questioning or arguing about semantics. The original statement says: you can't see it, it does not exist. Ok so are we talking about something physical? You can't see your thoughts as you think, but you know they exist. You can't see wind, but you see its effects. You can't sense Time or see it physically and it has no cause and effect, but we humans developed it as a concept in our mind, so it exist psychologically. But it seems we are talking about existence in the physical world, because we are talking about senses(sight) correct? :brickwall:

@I am question,

I am question;94787 wrote:

Everybody here seems to be questioning or arguing about semantics. The original statement says: you can't see it, it does not exist. Ok so are we talking about something physical? You can't see your thoughts as you think, but you know they exist. You can't see wind, but you see its effects. You can't sense Time or see it physically and it has no cause and effect, but we humans developed it as a concept in our mind, so it exist psychologically. But it seems we are talking about existence in the physical world, because we are talking about senses(sight) correct? :brickwall:

Well, I thought that people were using "see" in a broader sense than just the visual sense of "sight". I thought they were using it as a kind of synonym for, "perceive" (or "observe) which would include all of our senses, like hearing, or smelling, or feeling, etc. So, of course, if you use "see" in the very narrow sense of sight (as you say) then we can know about stuff we don't and cannot see. But if we use "see" in the wider sense of "perceive", we might very well argue that all of our knowledge about the world is ultimately based on, or comes from, sense-perception. In fact, that would be the theory of knowledge that goes under the name of Empiricism.

By the way. You are right about saying that, "If you can't see it, it does not exist" is wrong. But, the converse seems to be right. "If it does not exist, then you cannot see it". Maybe some people are confusing the first with the second, and think that because the second is right, the first is. People sometimes confuse "if X then Y" with "Y then X", and think it one is true, then so must the other be true. That, of course, is a fallacy. (In logic, "the fallacy of illicit conversion").

@awoelt,

Well, sounds interesting, but i got some arguments against that:
Lets say someone shoots at me, the Bullet travels so fast nobody can see it, but i still get hit by the Bullet.(Ok, the bullet is perceived in some way by the Eye, so lets go
further)
If a atom Bomb is launched and everybody simply closes their eyes, will the atom Bomb be gone? I cant imagine it will.
If i close my Eyes, my computer wont be gone (im pretty sure for my hands are still on the Keyboard.)
Or if i close my Eyes, im still hearing the Music from my Ipod, so it must be there.

@no1author,

The mad axe man that inhabited my bedroom ,as a child, was always fooled by the blanket that i covered myself with. I was fully protected from all kinds of evil monsters, from this magic blanket.

@awoelt,

Well i didint have a mad axe man in my room, and anyway in this case it was your blanket that protected you.

Philosophy Forum

you can't see it, it does not exist.

Quick Links

My Account

able2know