Prove my existence.

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Mon 26 Apr, 2010 08:44 am
@TuringEquivalent,
 
Marat phil
 
Reply Mon 26 Apr, 2010 08:44 am
@Diogenes phil,
I will create human. It will have portrait, the bank account, the driver's licence, the address. But this person - doesn't exist. I have created it. It I am. Someone has created Santa Klaus. Someone has created goblins. Someone has created Nessi. Their vital force is vital force of people which in them believe.
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Mon 26 Apr, 2010 08:47 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Can "true" nature be circumscribed ? Can we get the ontic fact right ?
 
Marat phil
 
Reply Mon 26 Apr, 2010 08:53 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil. Albuquerque;156718 wrote:
Can "true" nature be circumscribed ? Can we get the ontic fact right ?


It is impossible. The knowledge on the Earth in the physical world is limited. For exemple: We can't learn mathematics of space of Kolabi Jau.

---------- Post added 04-26-2010 at 09:59 AM ----------

We even can't designate Knowledge border. Beyond the facts - theories
 
Owen phil
 
Reply Mon 26 Apr, 2010 09:26 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;156691 wrote:
But to flip this around If Santa exists then Santa is fat doesn't make sense.

It makes sense, all right. And it is true. If an emaciated Santa claimed to be Santa, we would not believe him. Any Santa would be fat, since that is how Santa is depicted; as a fat jolly old elf. Of course, Santa need not be fat, but unless he were, we would think him an imposter (or maybe that he had had a hard night).

But, of course, what is a necessary truth is that if Santa exists, then Santa has properties. Not necessarily being fat, as I explained, but necessarily as have some properties. For "nothing has no properties" (Descartes).

As for "exist". "Exist" is, of course, grammatically a predicate. Everyone knows that. But that is surface grammar. The question is whether "exist" is a predicate, deep grammar. Kant and Hume both agreed it was not. But it is arguable that although "exist" is not a predicate of objects, as are ordinary predicates, it is a meta-predicate. That is to say, it is a predicate of predicates. And it is a predicate that all predicates that are instantiated have. Thus, for example, to say that God exists is to say that the predicates of omnipotence, omniscience, etc. etc. are instantiated. That seems to me to be a reasonable thing to say. So, is existence a predicate? Yes. But it is not a predicate of objects. It is a predicate of predicates.


As to 'exists' ..
..I don't agree that, existence is not a predicate of objects.
Existence is a predicate of all things, named or described.
We can express existence in the same way for all things.

X exists, means, there is some primary predicate (property) that X has.
Exists, is not a primary predicate but rather it is the logical sum of predicates that apply directly to X.

Secondary predication does not imply existence. ~Gx -> x exists, is false.

For individuals: x exists, means, (some F)F(x).
eg. a has the predicate B, (Ba), implies there is some predicate that a has.

For predicates: G exists, means, (some f)f(G).
eg. Red is a colour implies Red exists. Colour(red) -> (some f)f(red).
B is satisfied by a (Ba) implies B exists.

Ba -> (a exists & B exists).

If a thing has a property then that thing exists.

Existence exists, is true because there are existent things.

Russell too denied the predicate of existence to individuals.
See: Principia Mathematica, Vol I, page 183.
He claimed that existence applies only to descriptions.
Principia mathematica, by Alfred North Whitehead ... and Bertrand Russell.
 
salima
 
Reply Mon 26 Apr, 2010 09:57 am
@Diogenes phil,
ok, what is a property?

my dreams are very vivid, is that a property? and anyway, dreams exist, right? but they arent real...thoughts exist, memories exist...concepts also must exist, like the concept of santa claus or the concept of god. though it doesnt follow that because we have a concept of something it has to exist. we can design a concept like creating a work of art. in fact, now that i think of it we design and create our own sense of self-
not necessarily consciously or deliberately, but it is the mental faculty of the ego if i understand right.

i think existence is not easily definable. except what kenneth said sounds true to me-everything exists, and nothing cant exist. so there isnt any nothing...
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 26 Apr, 2010 10:26 am
@salima,
salima;156737 wrote:
ok, what is a property?

my dreams are very vivid, is that a property? and anyway, dreams exist, right? but they arent real...thoughts exist, memories exist...concepts also must exist, like the concept of santa claus or the concept of god. though it doesnt follow that because we have a concept of something it has to exist. we can design a concept like creating a work of art. in fact, now that i think of it we design and create our own sense of self-
not necessarily consciously or deliberately, but it is the mental faculty of the ego if i understand right.

i think existence is not easily definable. except what kenneth said sounds true to me-everything exists, and nothing cant exist. so there isnt any nothing...


Yes, vividness is a property of dreams. Why should it not be? Dreams, of course, exist. What occurs in dreams does not. If you mean when you say that dreams are not real, that what occurs in dreams isn't real, then, of course, you are right. But there are, of course dreams. We do not just imagine that there are dreams. Don't you agree. And yes, I agree, the concept of Santa does exist. So do pictures, and so do stories. But what does not exist is Santa himself. And you are, of course, right. It does not follow that because a concept of X exists, that X exists. Sometimes people think so because they confuse the concept of X with X. But that, of course, is a mistake.

What I said was not that everything exists, but that everything that exists, exists. Elves do not exist. Santa does not exist. But then, as I pointed out, elves and Santa are not anything.

"Exist" is definable, for is has been correctly defined, although how easy that was, is another question. Clearly, people have not found it easy to define, "existence" since many have tried, and failed. But, we now know that to exist means, "to have properties". So, whether or not it was easy, we have succeeded in doing it. As Spinoza pointed out, "All excellent things are as difficult as they are rare, for unless they were rare, everyone could accomplish them". And, by rare, Spinoza did not mean, "underdone".
 
salima
 
Reply Mon 26 Apr, 2010 10:50 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;156743 wrote:


What I said was not that everything exists, but that everything that exists, exists. Elves do not exist. Santa does not exist. But then, as I pointed out, elves and Santa are not anything.

"Exist" is definable, for is has been correctly defined, although how easy that was, is another question. Clearly, people have not found it easy to define, "existence" since many have tried, and failed. But, we now know that to exist means, "to have properties". So, whether or not it was easy, we have succeeded in doing it. As Spinoza pointed out, "All excellent things are as difficult as they are rare, for unless they were rare, everyone could accomplish them". And, by rare, Spinoza did not mean, "underdone".


so the concept of santa exists and has properties-but santa does not exist and also has no properties. isnt that the same as assuming that because santa does not exist, therefore he does not have properties? otherwise, why would santa not have the same properties as the concept of santa? or the opposite properties? suppose everyone has the concept of santa being fat, but in reality he is thin and avoiding the papparazzi?

maybe i am confusing a concept with a conception?
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Mon 26 Apr, 2010 10:56 am
@salima,
The question still remains, exists as what ? where does the concept finishes ?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 26 Apr, 2010 11:01 am
@salima,
salima;156751 wrote:
so the concept of santa exists and has properties-but santa does not exist and also has no properties. isnt that the same as assuming that because santa does not exist, therefore he does not have properties? otherwise, why would santa not have the same properties as the concept of santa? or the opposite properties? suppose everyone has the concept of santa being fat, but in reality he is thin and avoiding the papparazzi?

maybe i am confusing a concept with a conception?


I am not assuming that because Santa does not exist, he does not have properties. I am asserting it. You asked for a definition of "existence" and I gave you one. Namely that to exist is to have properties. What is your objection to that definition. Suppose I was asked, what is the definition of "son" and I said, "male child". Would you reply by saying, you are just assuming that sons are male children? Reason that the concept of Santa does not have the same properties as would Santa, if there were such a person, is the very same reason that the concept of an elephant and elephants do not have the same properties. Namely, that the concept of an elephant, and an elephant are very different kind of things. I thought you had agreed that concepts and what the concepts are concept of, are different. After all, you would not want to say that because the concept of Santa exists, that Santa exists, would you? No more than you would want to say that because the concept of The Fountain of Youth exists, that there is a Fountain of Youth.
 
sometime sun
 
Reply Mon 26 Apr, 2010 11:04 am
@Novice phil,
Novice;156612 wrote:
Senses can be deceptive for example situation like hallucination or dream. I don't think seeing yourself is solid proof of existence.

Good responce
Yes but you can only dream your own dreams............. cant you?
Just as you are the only one able to get your self out of bed.

If i have not welcomed you yet, welcome to the forum, we (I) need to hear your dreams to be able to fashion our (my) own.

Existence is not ever provable other than just existing.

Can your existence become something more existable?
What makes you feel 'real'?
And is not the only 'reality'

sometime sun is EXTANT until EXTINCT

---------- Post added 04-26-2010 at 06:07 PM ----------

Existence as in love, one must be chosen?

Can one chose to exist or is it chosen for you?
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Mon 26 Apr, 2010 11:07 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;156756 wrote:
I am not assuming that because Santa does not exist, he does not have properties. I am asserting it. You asked for a definition of "existence" and I gave you one. Namely that to exist is to have properties. What is your objection to that definition. Suppose I was asked, what is the definition of "son" and I said, "male child". Would you reply by saying, you are just assuming that sons are male children? Reason that the concept of Santa does not have the same properties as would Santa, if there were such a person, is the very same reason that the concept of an elephant and elephants do not have the same properties. Namely, that the concept of an elephant, and an elephant are very different kind of things. I thought you had agreed that concepts and what the concepts are concept of, are different. After all, you would not want to say that because the concept of Santa exists, that Santa exists, would you? No more than you would want to say that because the concept of The Fountain of Youth exists, that there is a Fountain of Youth.


This is clearly false ! You only can compare concepts with concepts, and not concepts with "real things"...whatever you think that means.
 
Owen phil
 
Reply Mon 26 Apr, 2010 11:41 am
@salima,
salima;156737 wrote:
ok, what is a property?

my dreams are very vivid, is that a property? and anyway, dreams exist, right? but they arent real...thoughts exist, memories exist...concepts also must exist, like the concept of santa claus or the concept of god. though it doesnt follow that because we have a concept of something it has to exist. we can design a concept like creating a work of art. in fact, now that i think of it we design and create our own sense of self-
not necessarily consciously or deliberately, but it is the mental faculty of the ego if i understand right.

i think existence is not easily definable. except what kenneth said sounds true to me-everything exists, and nothing cant exist. so there isnt any nothing...


imo,
A property is a predicate that applies directly to the subject.
For example: In 'a has the predicate B' (Ba), B is the primary predicate and a is the primary subject. But, in ~(Ba), B is not the primary predicate.

A primary predicate o f x is of the form F(x) and a secondary predicate of x is of the form f(F(x))).
Primary predications (properties) entail existence, but, secondary predications do not.
That god is omniscient implies god exists, but, god is not a horse does not imply god exists.

I agree that dreams do exist and they are real, even if their contents are not real or non-existent.

Concepts, names, and descriptions, do exist and their function is to refer or not.

The reference of Santa is the description of the mythical character given the mythical properties that are stated in the myth.
Santa wears a red suit (within the myth), is confirmed true by the myth alone.
Santa wears a red suit, is false in reality...because Santa is not unique.

I agree that "everything exists" is true within predicate logic because all names refer, but if we allow quantification over non-referring terms as well as referring terms then "everything exists" is false.
For example: ((all x)(x exists) -> Vulcan exists) & ~(Vulcan exists), therefore, (everything exists) is false.

In predicate logic, EyEx(x=y) or Ey(y exists), ie. something exists ..is tautologous.
It is not the case that something exists, ie. nothing exists..is a contradiction.
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Mon 26 Apr, 2010 12:58 pm
@Owen phil,
Owen;156769 wrote:
imo,
A property is a predicate that applies directly to the subject.
For example: In 'a has the predicate B' (Ba), B is the primary predicate and a is the primary subject. But, in ~(Ba), B is not the primary predicate.

A primary predicate o f x is of the form F(x) and a secondary predicate of x is of the form f(F(x))).
Primary predications (properties) entail existence, but, secondary predications do not.
That god is omniscient implies god exists, but, god is not a horse does not imply god exists.

I agree that dreams do exist and they are real, even if their contents are not real or non-existent.

Concepts, names, and descriptions, do exist and their function is to refer or not.

The reference of Santa is the description of the mythical character given the mythical properties that are stated in the myth.
Santa wears a red suit (within the myth), is confirmed true by the myth alone.
Santa wears a red suit, is false in reality...because Santa is not unique.

I agree that "everything exists" is true within predicate logic because all names refer, but if we allow quantification over non-referring terms as well as referring terms then "everything exists" is false.
For example: ((all x)(x exists) -> Vulcan exists) & ~(Vulcan exists), therefore, (everything exists) is false.

In predicate logic, EyEx(x=y) or Ey(y exists), ie. something exists ..is tautologous.
It is not the case that something exists, ie. nothing exists..is a contradiction.



When we say that some concept refers to a certain reality what we really mean is that some concept refers to our concept of what is real...
 
Deckard
 
Reply Mon 26 Apr, 2010 01:23 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;156691 wrote:

As for "exist". "Exist" is, of course, grammatically a predicate. Everyone knows that. But that is surface grammar. The question is whether "exist" is a predicate, deep grammar. Kant and Hume both agreed it was not. But it is arguable that although "exist" is not a predicate of objects, as are ordinary predicates, it is a meta-predicate. That is to say, it is a predicate of predicates. And it is a predicate that all predicates that are instantiated have. Thus, for example, to say that God exists is to say that the predicates of omnipotence, omniscience, etc. etc. are instantiated. That seems to me to be a reasonable thing to say. So, is existence a predicate? Yes. But it is not a predicate of objects. It is a predicate of predicates.


Are there any other predicates of predicates other than "exist" and its synonymns?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 26 Apr, 2010 01:32 pm
@Deckard,
Deckard;156808 wrote:
Are there any other predicates of predicates other than "exist" and its synonymns?


I think "beautiful" may be such a predicate. To say that X is beautiful means (I think) that X has qualities that make it beautiful. But beautiful is what is sometimes called a "supervenient" predicate. It cannot by itself predicate an object, but it is a predicate of an object because the object as other predicates.
 
Deckard
 
Reply Mon 26 Apr, 2010 01:37 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;156813 wrote:
I think "beautiful" may be such a predicate. To say that X is beautiful means (I think) that X has qualities that make it beautiful. But beautiful is what is sometimes called a "supervenient" predicate. It cannot by itself predicate an object, but it is a predicate of an object because the object as other predicates.

It would seem that "good" and possibly "true" would also be supervenient.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 26 Apr, 2010 01:42 pm
@Deckard,
Deckard;156817 wrote:
It would seem that "good" and possibly "true" would also be supervenient.


I don't know about true, but good is a good candidate.
 
Deckard
 
Reply Mon 26 Apr, 2010 02:21 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;155456 wrote:
X exists = X instantiates some properties. And X does not exist =X instantiates no properties.


How does this definition of existence square with the distinction between essential and accidental predication?

having properties seems to lean toward accidental predication but I suppose essential properties could be translated into something more accidental sounding like Socrates has humanness.

Is "instantiation" a general term that covers both types of predication?

Being human is having the properties of a human and having properties at all is existing.

Is existing an essential predicate? Grammatically, it seems to have more in common with the essential predicates than the accidental predicates.

Existence is said of a thing? Or is existence present in a thing?

I again lean toward the essential "said of".
 
Marat phil
 
Reply Mon 26 Apr, 2010 02:24 pm
@Owen phil,
Owen;155541 wrote:
Yes. If we define existence as having a property then, Exists(the x:Gx) <-> EF(F(the x:Gx)).
And, ~(Exists(the x:Gx)) <-> ~EF(F(the x:Gx)).

If 'the flying pink elephant' has the property of flying, then it exists.
If 'the flying pink elephant' has the property of being pink, then it exists.
If 'the flying pink elephant' has the property of being an elephant, then it exists.

If 'the flying pink elephant' has any property at all, then it exists.

B(the x: Bx & Cx) -> E!(the x: Bx & Cx), is a theorem.




Its Logical [SIZE="3"]ERROR
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/24/2021 at 10:11:05