Keith Russell

If we comprehend it enough to know that it exists, it's not really incomprehensible.

But, incomprehensible things can exist, we just cannot know that they exist.

Until something is at least somewhat comprehensible, it is irrational to believe in them.

Rational beliefs must be based on at least some evidence...

Keith.

Captain_Proton

I suppose that would probably make you a noncognitivist with respect to God-talk. But most theists do give attributes to their God(s), i.e. omnipotence, omniscience, etc. Of course, you can then say those attributes are in themselves incomprehensible to the mortal mind, as no one has actually experienced them. So we're back to square one.
Overall, I agree with everyone who said incomprehensible things can exist, but it is irrational to believe in them until you gain some degree of comprehension.

AdamWho

Maybe a change in terms would be helpful. Things can be comprehensible or incomprehensible but this is usually a statement from a individual point of view. Hence the comment about electricity being incomprehensible to savages.

Would in be better to say, "knowable" vs. "unknowable". For instance; in physics, the precise location and momentum of a particle are unknowable. This causes some confusion too because people confuse "unknowable" with "not known" or "really really hard to know" or "beyond present human knowability".

Just a thought....

The original problem cast with new definitions.

Is an unknowable thing said to exist?

slept2long

To you maybe. But since you posted it I have an idea of what you were getting at when you used "blerghquxl" as an example of a word that has no content. IOW you gave it meaning simply by using it. Hope that isn't too incomprehensible.

excreationist

Theli:
Perhaps anything can be theoretically explained in terms that a human could understand. Though the explanation might greatly approximate the actual phenomena and take a very long time to teach.
If there was a universe that didn't have any life in it - nothing that remotely could be said to "comprehend" something else... could that universe and the things in it be said to exist? I would probably say yes.

Theli

excreationist...

Would a universe never to be observed by humans really have things? For thing x to exist, there must be something to identify it, to draw the line between x and ~x. "Things" can only be said to exist when their concepts are created in the mind of the observer.

I don't think there is any objective rule when it comes to defining a thing.

Mr. Sammi

Do things not(comprehensible) exist?

Does something have to be comprehensible for it to exist?

Does this mean itz objective reality when represented by the human mind has no correspondence to precedence? If it does, then YES we can say incomprehensible things do exist and these things do have an objective reality.

Initially we may term these incomprehensible things foreign data.
This foreign data indicates to us a sensory appreciation of an external object for which we have no understanding.

Since I may be able to equate foreign data to incomprehensible objects AND since I can be as certain of this foreign data as I may be as certain of myself THEN the existence of this thing not(comprehensible) is valid.

These things do exist.


Sammi Na Boodie ()

Valmorian

Hkdue? Jammena saldane ieqje jr klaemwan! Gelminard.

Theli

Mr. Sammi...

I would argue that something must be atleast slightly comprehensible to be called a "thing", if not then how do you seperate 2 "things"? Is smoke, a thing?

No.

But here's the problem, you called it an "object". And to do so you must have comprehended enough to give it that "title", and also since you said you could acquire sensory data from it, it must have been comprehensible.

Back to my old question: What defines a thing?

I agree that things exists objectivly, but they are not "things" objectivly, as that requires an observation and a judgement.
So, something completely foreign cannot be divided into things or be conceptiually broken free from it's enviroment prior to observation.

Keith Russell

Theli:

'Smoke' is most certainly a thing (or, at least, a group of discernably similar molecules). We can--using certain diagnostic equipment, if nothing else--differentiate between particles of smoke, and the particles which comprise the 'normal' surrounding atmosphere.

We can even--using the same tools--discern the atmosphere's specific, measurable molecular structure.

A 'thing' is simply a discernable entity. We can differentiate between this carbon atom, and that oxygen atom, and those nitrogen atoms.

Keith.