Tercel

I beg to differ. He is asking you to define the word "existence"...
...and if he wasn't, well then he should have been.

NonHomogenized

An unwarranted assertion is an unwarranted assertion. If you're admitting that your worldview isn't supported by logic, then that's your choice.

Albert Cipriani

Dear Lob,
You say, Meaning is nothing other than a relationship between two disparate entities. So to strain to the breaking point the meaning of this definition, one can say that the earth’s gravity is meaningful to our moon. Why? The earth’s gravity is in a dynamic relationship with the moon’s gravity. Defined as such, meaning is not a human construct.

You say, Not at all. I’m saying that to posit the existence of a universe that is not perceived and cannot ever be perceived, is to posit a non-entity. For, endemic with the conception of existence is perception. And the perception need not be human perception.

You guys remind me of the scientific elite one century ago who posited ether. Sure, it couldn’t be in any way sensed but it always was and always would be everywhere.

Point is, when the subject matter is matter, nature as opposed to the supernatural, physical as opposed to spiritual, then whatever you posit as existent must be experiential. This is merely a truism. I’m amazed you consider it arguable. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Lobstrosity

Fine, but then defined this way, meaning is divorced from consciousness. There is no implication that consiousness is required for this type of meaning to exist. If you want to argue that the universe has no "meaning" without consciousness, you cannot use this definition of "meaning" you give above.

Albert, you put way too much value into cognitive "perception" without justification. If you defined "perception" as a more basic "interaction," I think you might be on to something (it would be something trivial, but at least you'd still be on to something). When two rocks collide in space, they "perceive" each other in that they influence one another. The presence of consciousness has no bearing. It would be correct to say that a unverse in which no components could interact with any other components is a non-entity--I will grant you this whole-heartedly, though it's rather a trivial concept. I really don't understand why the statement that human consciousness gives the universe meaning TO HUMANS is insufficient for you.

Basically, any universe in which things are allowed to interact is a universe that could be perceived were humans (or other "conscious" life) to be there. As such, there could be billions of lifeless universes out there that are not non-entities (or, sans double-negative, are entities) by the sheer virtue of the fact that they contain interacting constituents. Given this, what the hell are we even arguing about? No one ever posits the existence of a universe that cannot ever be perceived, they simply posit the existence of universes that aren't perceived, and it seems they'd be fully-justified in doing so.

Is this supposed to be some sort of put-down? Perhaps I'm just not intelligent enough to grasp your analogy. At any rate, just to make sure we're on the same page, allow me to make a few minor corrections--the tone I perceive (heh) in the above quote makes me feel like your knowledge of physics history could possibly be a small bit lacking, Albert. First of all, ether wasn't posited as a fundamentally undectable quantity, it was posited as a medium that facilitated the transmission of photons--photons inferred its presence, but we hadn't yet observed it using the technology of the day. It was actually quite a reasonable thing to hypothesize at the time. Think about it...evidence shows you that photons have wave-like properties. Every wave you know about requires a medium in which to wave (water wave, sound, waves on a string, etc). No physicist at the time could even comprehend the idea that something could wave without some background. So the very fact that photons were waves hinted that there was likely some heretofore undetected medium in which it waved. Following me so far? It wasn't long before physicists devised a way to test for the presence of ether. If ether existed, it was postulated to be homogeneously distributed throughout the universe. As the Earth orbited the sun, the Earth would be sweeping a path through this ether. Since the speed of light should be a constant in the frame of the ether, we on Earth should measure the speed of light to be different values as our orbital velocity changes sign. Experiments showed that the speed of light was constant no mater what our orbital velocity was, indicating that either the Earth was really stationary with respect to the ether (not likely since the idea that the Earth was at the center of the universe had been discarded by then) or there was no ether. The results of this experiments caused most physicists to discard the idea of ether. So, what exactly was wrong with hypothesizing the existence of ether and why did you feel the need to bring it up? Do you equally scoff at scientists today who propose the existence of dark matter because they currently can't detect it through electromagnetic interactions? Are they doing something foolhardy or bad?

Albert, there are things consciousness perceives that do not exist. Halucinations fall under this category (as does the Matrix and the Matrix Reloaded, coming soon to a theatre near you). In the same vein, there are things that consciousness doesn't currently perceive that do exist in an objective sense. I get the feeling that everything you say should simply have a "to humans" appended to it and I'd be perfectly happy. It's your lack of this disclaimer that is disturbing. Basically, I feel like you're attempting to make deep metaphysical arguments that convey no real objective ideas. Taking your stance to absurd extremes, I could make similar such arguments by saying that you really only exist because I perceive you and when I die you will cease to exist (which would be true depending on how we define existence--something it seems we have all been loath to do in this thread). Without me, the universe would be a non-entity. There's some merit to that argument, too. How do I know you have the same level of consciousness I do? How do I know you have enough "consciousness" to perceive this universe as it needs to be perceived? Maybe you're all mindless creatures that just simulate consciousness--I have no solid evidence that "you think, therefore you are." How do I know the universe isn't merely a construct of my consciousness? Maybe you're a halucination. I could go on and on with these "deep" hypotheticals, but what the hell's the point. No real information is being conveyed and instead we're all just focusing on rather trivial "what ifs" that are based on a highly-incomplete and highly-subjective notions of concepts like "consciousness" and "perception" and what is required for "universal existence."

Koyaanisqatsi

Although I know you won't respond to my post (because only you exist), Terc, ol' bean, I'll respond to yours. It gives me a naughty thrill . I mean....you give yourself a naughty thrill.

Your post. If your post does not exist "outside of [my] conscious" then you don't exist.

Q.E.D.

I mean....sorry, you mean, that if your imagination of my post doesn't exist "outside of [your] conscious" then I don't exist.

Didn't mean to muddle things. I mean....sorry...You mean, you didn't mean to muddle things for yourself. Right? That would be ludicrous (according to you, of course).

Need we? I mean you. I'm posting. You're posting. What about those two facts gives you pause, other than the fact that I'm you?

Your turn. Oh, right, sorry. I forgot, you won't answer my posts because of my tone (and, apparently, because you so deeply wish I didn't exist...no wait...I can't exist if it were up to you....no wait....)

Who can't? Correct you if you're wrong, but doesn't your rant mean that only you exist? Who are the "they," then?

Yes, just by typing these words. Now, more importantly, can you prove yourself right? Oh, wait, you don't have to, because you can't prove that any of us exist and neither can we. If only there were some simple way for us to prove to you that we exist, but, of course, that is mere folly on your part, right?

Fairly self-evident, don't you think. After all, you wrote it. I didn't. That means you exist as do I. No wait.

Do you have proof to the contrary? After all, a logical analysis of what you're arguing would be that only you (at least) exist. So, kindly prove I (and everybody else's threads you continue to respond to--illogically, if your claim is true--don't exist.

We'll wait. I mean...you'll wait. For your own response in the guise of all of us.

Name one question an atheist isn't "allowed" to answer and while you're at it, if you don't mind (since only you exist), addend whom it is that is doing the "allowing?"

(hey, nice addition of the "" in that above sentence you ficticiously atrtributed to me; a wishfull figment of your imagination! looks good...according to you, of course).

Is that an example of a question we non-existent figments of your imagination aren't "allowed" to answer, because I can answer it. I don't know.

Are you "allowed" to answer that question, because I'd love to hear your answer. That is, of course, if I could somehow prove I exist to you. Damn. I guess all of us really are just figments of your imagination. Funny how that condemns you, if you think about it. Not me, of course, but you, since you're here interracting with figments of your own imagination, of course.

Damn, I wish I existed so that I could analyze just exactly what it means for a theist to be imagining all of us nonexistent atheists! I wonder what the non-existent Freud would have said about the only existing being carrying on non-existent debates with figments of his own imagination that are all 100% against his own beliefs!?

That must be strange for you to know you are the only one who exists and still keep pretending that all of us exist!

Different than what? What it is? Oh, right, sorry again. Only you exist in this universe, so I guess that means that you can make the universe to be anything you want it to be! Wow! That's incredible (I mean, if I existed), since that would mean you could just turn Mars into a ball of goat cheese, right? I mean, if nothing exists outside of your own perception and all, right? Silly me. Look who you are asking; yourself!

Why are you asking yourself a question about asking yourself a question about your ability to change matter into cheese? After all, only you exist to ask yourself these questions, right? Ooops! There you go again; asking yourself these questions and pretending that some imaginary being "outside" yourself is asking yourself these questions.

Well, since you're obviously asking yourself these questions and I am just a figment of your imagination (bad cheese?) and all, I would say (that is, you would say) that the answer is "non-material non-physical equations can't be answered at all" right?

Or do you (that is, me, that is you) can answer that be pretending not only that all of us exist, but also that a "God" exists?

Oh, no, you can't, since that would definitively establish that something other than you exists, which is impossible to prove. Wow, I get it now (which means, of course, that you get it now), only you exist because you pretend that a God exists in order to establish that only you exist!

It's all now crystal clear. To you.

You guess, only you know. Right? I mean (sorry, you mean), right, with no question mark. After all, it's absurd that you would ask yourself all of these questions since only you exist. Right?

Don't answer that! After all, if you do, then you would know we exist and that's impossible according to you. You have no proof that we exist and neither do you. I mean we. I mean you. You mean.... You.

wordsmyth

Lets examine again what was asked in the OP.

It is apparent from this that the word "meaning" is not synonymous with the word "definition". To further illustrate this point lets replace "meaning" with "definition" and see what happens.

Put it this way, if the universe existed and not one microbe was alive to experience any part of it, what definition could "existence" possibly have?

This makes the question awkward at best and irrelevant at worst. So, either your objection is not valid or the OPer did not make his position clear and needs to re-word the question and/or provide additional details.

However, to answer your question, which follows...



For something to exist means it has actuality. It is present in a specific place. This applies to both living and non-living things. Example: The sun exists at the center of this solar system. I exist on the third planet from the sun in this solar system.

Koyaanisqatsi

Ahhh, but, re my first post (that is to say, "Tercel's imagination of my first post") you don't exist. Only Tercel does, since none of us can prove we exist "outside" of Tercel's perception.

Quite a lonely existence, doesn't Tercel think?

Darth Dane

Ahhh, but, re my first post (that is to say, "Tercel's imagination of my first post") you don't exist. Only Tercel does, since none of us can prove we exist "outside" of Tercel's perception.

Quite a lonely existence, doesn't Tercel think?

Yes, from a certain POV, everything that Is is Tercel, why would Tercel create us?

Maybe because it was boring being all one or alone?

Before Humans Tercel experienced through Nature, animals and plants, however they had no real free will, they followed their instincts. This got repetitious perhaps, and Tercel wanted something to be able to combine things in a new way that Tercel hadn't thought of, bearing in mind that noone can think or invent anything without teh aid of Tercel. Tercel in all this doesn't mind if you destroy or build, if you create life or if you create deah and destruction, Tercel looks with divine eyes and no judgement, because Tercel knows that it is only himself doing everything, so forgiveness is implicit, for if we knew what we were doing we would not do "bad" things.

"Forgive them Father(Tercel) for they not know what they do" - Yes, Jesus realised that his essence was of Tercel and Tercel is everything, Jesus is not Tercel as a finite entity, but essence is teh same.





DD - Love Spliff

Inconnu

If an entity requires observation or perception to exists then does this not disprove the existance of god?

Darth Dane

Inconnu: If an entity requires observation or perception to exists then does this not disprove the existance of god?

No, not if everything perceives and observes. In our dream we observe and perceive our dream, the dream is unreal according to some and thus your observation is unreal, i.e. your dream doesn't exist. It also means you don't need your eyes and ears and touch to experience with your mind or conciousness.

Your conciousness is not bound by physical attributes it could seem, and if it is not bound by physical presense, then conciousness can cover everything, but maybe not express itself, like we can through our body. Our body is a way for conciousness to express itself, like animals are, and plants and stones and so on.

So conciousness is looking at conciousness everywhere, everything is looking at itself.





DD - Love Spliff