rainbow walking

Now wait a minute Koy, I can remember starting with pure THC (at least that's what I was told) and wound up imagining some very bizarre, if not down right perverse worlds. I think you've committed a fallacy in there somewhere...maybe?

Tercel

Sorry for the delay in replies, I've had a very hectic workload for the last month or so...

I see however, Wordsmyth despite many references to the dictionary, has still not managed to answer my question regarding the nature of existence. Since you deny Alberts suggestion that something exists if and only if it is experienced, it seems only reasonable you provide an explanation of what you take existence to mean.

Dictionary definition saying the word means "real" or "actual" or "manifested" or "occured", don't actually explain why Albert's suggestion is incorrect.

But what does that "actuality" consist of? I can imagine a huge black plane of reality with space-time sitting like a blob in one corner of the plane of the "real" things. Is that what it means? You seem to think that something can "exist" outside of any relationship to anything else. Imagine a piece of cheese was the only thing that existed. Nothing else in all reality but that one piece of cheese. In what sense does it "exist"? How is it actually different to a reality in which nothing exists at all?

You say "continued or repeated manifestation". But a manifestation of what and where? The word "manifestation" to me implies a revealing or discovery, ie the process of observation by an observer. Presumably that is not what you mean however.

I am suggesting that if no one perceived the sun then it would not exist.

It's hardly a revolutionary suggestion: Schrodinger with his cat beat me to it long ago.

Tercel

I don't use circular arguments. (Or at least no more circular than what is unavoidable) I think you are confused as you earlier believed something to be a premise when it was in fact a conclusion.

Not at all. Logic exists. Hence, any way of thinking about reality (any "worldview") must have the validity of logic as a consequence of it, if it is to be correct.
Think of it this way: If I predict one thing because of the way I think about things and you predict another because you think differently, and it turns out that what happens was as you predicted it - then who's way of thinking is likely better?
If Idealism predicts logic (provides "support for" logic as I put it, since we are dealing with after the fact "predictions" here) and Materialism doesn't, as I and many others argue is the case - then which is to be preferred?

I intend to write a lengthy (~30 page or more) explanation of the reasons later this year. A very brief summary then:
Materialism suffers from a number of "difficult questions" which I listed earlier: "what caused the universe to exist?", "why isn't the universe just a little bit different?", "how is it that physical matter can be accurately described by non-material non-physical equations?", "how is it that non-physical, non-material, logical and mathematical propositions and proofs can be true and true universally?". There are several other deep philosophical problems explained quite well here. (His conclusions and aim are seriously unsound, but he outlines relatively well several issues the Materialist POV struggles to deal with.)

Idealism, on the other hand, answers all those questions with relative ease. (Obviously I intend to show how, but not here.)
Similarly, quantum physics been interpreted by many as implying idealism in some form or another. eg The Copenhagen interpretation, Schrodinger's cat etc seem to suggest experience is essential to existence. Also, our increasing understanding of Information theory has led many to propose an information theoretic basis for reality, which fits snugly inside an idealist view but not very well into a materialist view.

Tercel

True, but you seem to be missing full implications that in any act of perception there is the perceiver and that which is perceived. In the first instance, of course, there is the special case in which the perceiver is that which is perceived - ie self-awareness. (As a Christian, I equate that with God the Father - the one who is the "I AM", who is nothing but a self-perceiving Existent.)

But apart from that there is a distinction between that which perceives and that which is the information perceived. This natural dualism leads to the Creator/Creation distinction of Christianity. The Creator is in all creation, through all creation and transcends all creation, but is not Creation. The perception of the creation takes place within the Reality that is God, but is not equivalent to it.

Thus, I think your pantheism is non-sensical: The natural perceiver/perceived distinction destroys a pure monism.

wordsmyth

Tercel,

I'm going to start at the end of your last response to clear up a misconception that you have.

I don't think you understand the Schroedinger's Cat paradox, so allow me to elucidate.

A cat is placed in a box, together with a radioactive atom. If the atom decays, and the geiger-counter detects an alpha particle, the hammer hits a flask of prussic acid (HCN), killing the cat. The paradox lies in the clever coupling of quantum and classical domains. Before the observer opens the box, the cat's fate is tied to the wave function of the atom, which is itself in a superposition of decayed and undecayed states. Thus, said Schroedinger, the cat must itself be in a superposition of dead and alive states before the observer opens the box, ``observes'' the cat, and ``collapses'' it's wave function.

First, it is never questioned whether or not the cat exists while in the box, only in what state the cat exists (i.e. alive or dead).

Second, this failed as an explanation of the paradox because it was later realized that the cat counts as an observer. However, even if an inanimate object (something incapable of conscious observation) replaced the cat in the box, it still would not be a question of the objects existence, but the state of that existence. So as you can see, this does nothing for your argument.

Lets go back and take a look at page one.

I said in response to the OP... You are presuming that there is some objective meaning to existence and conflating the two.

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

I then proceeded to define the word existence because you insisted that what the OP wanted was a definition and not meaning. Now you continue to insist that I haven't provided you with a meaning to existence, when I stated quite clearly in my first post that there isn't one.

You asked for a definiton and I provided one, so its not my fault you don't understand. I'm also not responsible for your ignorance on the difference between definition and meaning. Again I would suggest picking up a dictionary.

No, what you can imagine does not exist because it does not have actuality. It does not possess a continued manifestation. I suppose you could say that it exists in your imagination, but your imagination does not have actuality, so in the strictest sense it does not "exist".

Because the cheese has actuality, it has a continued manifestation regardless of whether anything is there to experience it.

Here is a little experiment. I have a weapon that is capable of eliminating all life in the universe one organism at a time. After the elimination of each organism, I will record any noticeable changes to everything else in the universe to see if there is any noticeable change because of the elimination of an organism. Once I have eliminated every organism except myself and found absolutely no noticeable change due to their absence, is there any reason to believe there would be a change by eliminating myself? By your reasoning, although there was no noticeable change from the elimination of all organisms save one, by eliminating the final organism everything in the universe would suddenly cease to have actuality as soon as the last organism capable of experiencing it is eliminated.

Lets take the experiment a step further. Before I eliminate myself, but after I have eliminated all organisms, I will eliminate all non-organisms in the universe one at a time and record any change to the existence of other non-organisms until there is only one non-organism left (a piece of cheese) and myself. Is there any reason to believe that by leaving the last non-organism and eliminating myself that the the non-organism will cease to continue its manifestation simply because there is nothing else there?

No, I think your reasoning is flawed and there is no rationale in believing that existence requires discovery. I would say that discovery requires existence. There are many things in this universe that we have yet to discover, but that does not mean they don't exist until we discover them. This is rather backwards because something must already exist before we can discover it. That is just common sense.

Tercel

Wordsmyth,

I am well aware the question in the cat's case was whether it was alive or dead. What you don't seem to be understanding is my suggestion that an equivalent case exists for the question of existence/non-existence.

You also apparently seem to think that something that only exists in a superposition of all possible states rather than in any actual state can be said to exist. Why?

Ah, okay. Your use of the word "meaning" I understood as referring to "purpose" (as in the "meaning of life") rather than "definition". Please do not patronisingly refer me to a dictionary when you yourself could not even convey your point unambiguously.
Therefore we appear to be in agreement that materialism provides no objective meaning to existence.

Hence I suggest Idealism is preferable is it has greater explanatory power since it provides such a meaning.

You appear correct in your analysis of my reasoning. I see nothing wrong with your results.
You have a difficultly with the results only because you assume that matter inherently exists. ie. That the objects we experience have some mystical magical and wonderful property in them whereby they exist, regardless of anything else.
Basically: You are a materialist. Wow, no suprises there.

In my opinion though, such objects have no real existence, they exist only as information perceived by the senses. It's exactly like The Matrix. If you unplugged every observer but one from the Matrix, it would still be there insofar as it was perceived by the remaining person... if you unplugged the last one, it wouldn't. It's not something that has real existence in itself, its only real existence is the information regarding its state that is perceived by those "in it".

wordsmyth

You are attempting to equivocate the Schroedinger’s Cat paradox to your own fabricated theory that existence requires observation. That is misleading and dishonest, as I have already pointed out.

That is not what I said at all. In fact, I do not believe anything can exist in a superposition of all possible states, but can only exist in an actual state. In other words, it exists in an actual state regardless of whether or not that state is readily observable.

Example: Replace Schroedinger’s Cat with Schroedinger’s Ice Cube. Now the question becomes is it a solid or has it become a liquid. The ice cube is either one or the other regardless of whether or not we can observe it. Our observation does not dictate what state it is in, it only reveals what state it is in and it never ever assumes that it does not exist in any state as you continue to assert.

I am not concerned with –isms. You can label me a materialist if you like, but I prefer to think of myself as a realist, because I live in the real world and not some idealistic fantasy world of ghosts, goblins and sky pixies. There is no objective meaning to existence.

You are excellent at making assertions, but so far have done nothing to support them. I, and I’m sure anyone else reading this thread, would much appreciate your explanation of this alleged objective meaning that existence has.

You assume matter does not inherently exist, yet have provided not one shred of evidence, other than your dishonest attempt to use the Schroedinger’s Cat paradox. I have already given an example of how to test this and you have failed to even attempt a refutation.

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the Matrix is a movie and much like your reasoning, based purely on fantasy. However, to humor you, I will continue with your Matrix analogy. It makes no difference whether or not anyone is plugged into the Matrix, the code that everything else is made up of continues to operate and interact. Rain continues to fall, the sun continues to rise and set, volcanoes continue to erupt.

It is the same with the real world. Regardless of whether or not any conscious life is here to observe/experience it, stars would continue to form/explode, asteroids would continue to collide, and time would move on. There is nothing in the universe that even suggests life is a necessity. Life is not a necessity for the universe to exist; it is the universe that is a necessity for life to exist.

The universe was formed long before there was any life to observe/experience it. So too was the Matrix created before anyone could have been plugged into it. Something must exist before it can be observed/experienced.

If you are going to continue to assert that existence has an objective meaning, please provide an explanation of what that meaning is and support that explanation with some valid evidence.