Total Posts:55|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

"To Exist" means "To be there"

Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,035
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 5:17:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I've been pondering this thought recently. Whenever I think of something that exists, I can always attach it to a location either external or internal.

Is this a valid thought? Is this a sound thought? I would like to hear the opinions of others. Would it be accurate to associate that which "exists" to that which is "there"?
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
JohnMaynardKeynes
Posts: 1,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 7:47:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 5:17:24 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I've been pondering this thought recently. Whenever I think of something that exists, I can always attach it to a location either external or internal.

Is this a valid thought? Is this a sound thought? I would like to hear the opinions of others. Would it be accurate to associate that which "exists" to that which is "there"?

I think it depends on what you mean by "there." I agree with you on a practical level that we ascribe objective existence a posteriori, so it would follow that we would possess locational knowledge. The problem I see with this potentially, though, is what actually related to what we discussed with bossy in a hangout about a week back: the fact that we can't know for certain, say, God's existence significantly slants whether it would be accurate to equate existence with "being there." If we were to even consider the unfalsifiable thesis that an omnipresent God "exists," technically "there" becomes "everywhere." On top of that, we may not even know what "everywhere" entails, which would be especially true with increasing evidence for a multiverse.

That side, I do generally agree with you that insofar as we are describing objective existence, it follows that we should be able to ascribe location, even vaguely -- e.g., X person lives in Y region.
~JohnMaynardKeynes

"The sight of my succulent backside acts as a sedative for the beholder. It soothes the pain of life and makes all which hurts seem like bliss. I urge all those stressed by ridiculous drama on DDO which will never affect your real life to gaze upon my cheeks for they will make you have an excitement and joy you've never felt before." -- Dr. Dennybug

Founder of the BSH-YYW Fan Club
Founder of the Barkalotti
Stand with Dogs and Economics
GodChoosesLife
Posts: 3,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 7:50:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 5:17:24 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I've been pondering this thought recently. Whenever I think of something that exists, I can always attach it to a location either external or internal.

Is this a valid thought? Is this a sound thought? I would like to hear the opinions of others. Would it be accurate to associate that which "exists" to that which is "there"?

What do you mean exactly by "there"?
Better than deserved, as ALWAYS.
"The strongest principle of growth lies in human choices."
"The Lord doesn't promise us a perfect life that is free of problems, but he does promise that He'll get us through anything." ~SweeTea
"Good Times" ~ Max
"If Jesus isn't in heaven, then it's not heaven; instead, it's hell." ~anonymous
"Suffering is unimaginably confusing, but it's a way to be drawn closer to God" ~Me
"Tell me what consumes your heart most, and I'll tell you who your God is." ~Dad
GodChoosesLife
Posts: 3,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 7:51:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 5:17:24 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I've been pondering this thought recently. Whenever I think of something that exists, I can always attach it to a location either external or internal.

Is this a valid thought? Is this a sound thought? I would like to hear the opinions of others. Would it be accurate to associate that which "exists" to that which is "there"?

And in which context are you referring these questions to? God whether of His Existence? Or that God is "There"? maybe elaborate a bit more?
Better than deserved, as ALWAYS.
"The strongest principle of growth lies in human choices."
"The Lord doesn't promise us a perfect life that is free of problems, but he does promise that He'll get us through anything." ~SweeTea
"Good Times" ~ Max
"If Jesus isn't in heaven, then it's not heaven; instead, it's hell." ~anonymous
"Suffering is unimaginably confusing, but it's a way to be drawn closer to God" ~Me
"Tell me what consumes your heart most, and I'll tell you who your God is." ~Dad
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 1:53:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 5:17:24 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I've been pondering this thought recently. Whenever I think of something that exists, I can always attach it to a location either external or internal.

Is this a valid thought? Is this a sound thought? I would like to hear the opinions of others. Would it be accurate to associate that which "exists" to that which is "there"?

The meaning of being is more than an ontic property such as spatial location.
Ajabi
Posts: 1,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 3:21:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
It is vague since what is "there". I do not think one can base Existence on Spacialness. I mean Heidegger tried to base it on Is-ness, which did a bit back fire, since it assumes the absoluteness of space or in Heidegger's case of Time.

So when one says to Exist is to Be There, one assumes There is a constant. There is universal, I do not think we could base it on that then.
Ajabi
Posts: 1,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 3:22:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 9:31:57 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"To exist is to be perceived." - George Berkeley

This is a contentious statement. In any case to exist has some pre-requisites, this is one of them no doubt.
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,035
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 4:51:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 7:47:54 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 8/19/2014 5:17:24 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I've been pondering this thought recently. Whenever I think of something that exists, I can always attach it to a location either external or internal.

Is this a valid thought? Is this a sound thought? I would like to hear the opinions of others. Would it be accurate to associate that which "exists" to that which is "there"?

I think it depends on what you mean by "there." I agree with you on a practical level that we ascribe objective existence a posteriori, so it would follow that we would possess locational knowledge. The problem I see with this potentially, though, is what actually related to what we discussed with bossy in a hangout about a week back: the fact that we can't know for certain, say, God's existence significantly slants whether it would be accurate to equate existence with "being there." If we were to even consider the unfalsifiable thesis that an omnipresent God "exists," technically "there" becomes "everywhere." On top of that, we may not even know what "everywhere" entails, which would be especially true with increasing evidence for a multiverse.

That side, I do generally agree with you that insofar as we are describing objective existence, it follows that we should be able to ascribe location, even vaguely -- e.g., X person lives in Y region.

I suppose under the association I gave between "to exist" and "to be there" then God, in the form of the tri-omni god, would not exist. I feel like my argument is wholly dependent on empiricist methods of observation. It's literally applicable for anything else we can run through it - aside from God. These words exist because they are found on this page, they are "there" on the page you are looking at right now. A banana exists because I can point to banana trees in South America (for example, lol). Space? It exists because it is there *pointing to the empty space between myself and this screen or up at the stars*. It seems like the only thing that puts a damper on this little parade of mine is the tri-omni god.

I must ask then, is it fair to throw out a theory because it doesn't uphold against an imaginary being?
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,035
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 4:52:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 7:50:07 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
At 8/19/2014 5:17:24 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I've been pondering this thought recently. Whenever I think of something that exists, I can always attach it to a location either external or internal.

Is this a valid thought? Is this a sound thought? I would like to hear the opinions of others. Would it be accurate to associate that which "exists" to that which is "there"?

What do you mean exactly by "there"?

Locality - or physical location. If you see my response to JMK you'll probably get a better idea of what I meant. Basically, my sock exists because it can be found on my foot. If something exists - is it represented in our physical reality in some form or another.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,035
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 4:54:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 9:31:57 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"To exist is to be perceived." - George Berkeley

Lol, I literally just finished some of his work and before that was Locke, next up - Hume. Currently I think this is simply me desiring to work through his observations myself for some sort of personal verification of the soundness/validity of such statements.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,035
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 4:57:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 1:53:36 AM, Sargon wrote:
At 8/19/2014 5:17:24 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I've been pondering this thought recently. Whenever I think of something that exists, I can always attach it to a location either external or internal.

Is this a valid thought? Is this a sound thought? I would like to hear the opinions of others. Would it be accurate to associate that which "exists" to that which is "there"?

The meaning of being is more than an ontic property such as spatial location.

Then could you expand on what other properties or elements would make up being? I believe spatial location provides a strong foundation for that which exists or being.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,035
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 4:58:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 3:21:20 AM, Ajabi wrote:
It is vague since what is "there". I do not think one can base Existence on Spacialness. I mean Heidegger tried to base it on Is-ness, which did a bit back fire, since it assumes the absoluteness of space or in Heidegger's case of Time.

So when one says to Exist is to Be There, one assumes There is a constant. There is universal, I do not think we could base it on that then.

I know you left, but if you come back and see this, can you please expand on this point? I'm not sure I'm fully grasping what you mean.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Skikx
Posts: 132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 5:28:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 5:17:24 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I've been pondering this thought recently. Whenever I think of something that exists, I can always attach it to a location either external or internal.

Is this a valid thought? Is this a sound thought? I would like to hear the opinions of others. Would it be accurate to associate that which "exists" to that which is "there"?

So what is the location of the universe, then?
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,035
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 5:32:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 5:28:49 PM, Skikx wrote:
At 8/19/2014 5:17:24 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I've been pondering this thought recently. Whenever I think of something that exists, I can always attach it to a location either external or internal.

Is this a valid thought? Is this a sound thought? I would like to hear the opinions of others. Would it be accurate to associate that which "exists" to that which is "there"?

So what is the location of the universe, then?

We are all encompassed by the universe. It exists all around us since we now know that we are simply creatures on a rock floating in space. We can see the universe all around us, it's been observable since man was able to look up at the stars and conceptualize that those stars are separate from ourselves. Hence why it encompasses us all.

It's like putting a round candy inside a balloon and then asking where is the balloon located in relation to the candy. One would answer that the balloon encompasses the piece of candy, just as the universe encompasses the earth.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Skikx
Posts: 132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 6:12:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 5:32:52 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 8/20/2014 5:28:49 PM, Skikx wrote:
At 8/19/2014 5:17:24 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I've been pondering this thought recently. Whenever I think of something that exists, I can always attach it to a location either external or internal.

Is this a valid thought? Is this a sound thought? I would like to hear the opinions of others. Would it be accurate to associate that which "exists" to that which is "there"?

So what is the location of the universe, then?

We are all encompassed by the universe. It exists all around us since we now know that we are simply creatures on a rock floating in space. We can see the universe all around us, it's been observable since man was able to look up at the stars and conceptualize that those stars are separate from ourselves. Hence why it encompasses us all.

It's like putting a round candy inside a balloon and then asking where is the balloon located in relation to the candy. One would answer that the balloon encompasses the piece of candy, just as the universe encompasses the earth.

But we are part of the universe. Therefore locating the universe in relation to us is location it in relation to itself and thus not locating it at all.

It's like your looking for your car and I say it encompasses its motor. As true as that may be, it doesn't give you any information on your cars actual location, unless you have information on the location of your cars motor, unrelated to the car itself.
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,035
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 6:35:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 6:12:53 PM, Skikx wrote:
At 8/20/2014 5:32:52 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 8/20/2014 5:28:49 PM, Skikx wrote:
At 8/19/2014 5:17:24 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I've been pondering this thought recently. Whenever I think of something that exists, I can always attach it to a location either external or internal.

Is this a valid thought? Is this a sound thought? I would like to hear the opinions of others. Would it be accurate to associate that which "exists" to that which is "there"?

So what is the location of the universe, then?

We are all encompassed by the universe. It exists all around us since we now know that we are simply creatures on a rock floating in space. We can see the universe all around us, it's been observable since man was able to look up at the stars and conceptualize that those stars are separate from ourselves. Hence why it encompasses us all.

It's like putting a round candy inside a balloon and then asking where is the balloon located in relation to the candy. One would answer that the balloon encompasses the piece of candy, just as the universe encompasses the earth.


But we are part of the universe. Therefore locating the universe in relation to us is location it in relation to itself and thus not locating it at all.

That's actually tricky. We are both a part of the universe but also clearly self-moving things within the universe itself. If anything, I'd say we are a subset of the universe. We can view the universe that is exterior or outside of our own bodies, thus there is a definite frame of reference we can use to remove ourselves from the observable universe in question. We can't just say the universe exists and is located "there" while pointing to a random person on the street.

It's like your looking for your car and I say it encompasses its motor. As true as that may be, it doesn't give you any information on your cars actual location, unless you have information on the location of your cars motor, unrelated to the car itself.

No dude, you are comparing the universe to a car, lol. The car isn't the limitations of our spatial locations, the universe is. That is the immediate problem with your example that I see. Maybe if we were motor oil and were asking the question of where the car is located. Since we would be within that system, we would say accurately that the car encompasses all that is - it works since you are merely a component of that car. But for us, a car isn't the limitations of our spatial perception, the universe and it's farthest expanses are.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 6:42:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 5:17:24 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I've been pondering this thought recently. Whenever I think of something that exists, I can always attach it to a location either external or internal.

Is this a valid thought? Is this a sound thought? I would like to hear the opinions of others. Would it be accurate to associate that which "exists" to that which is "there"?

Like the first guy who responded, it really depends on what you mean by there. If I think of a red house in my head, that red house does not exist physically and in a could sense therefore not be there, unless there can exist in the mind also.
Nolite Timere
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,035
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 6:55:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 6:42:55 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 8/19/2014 5:17:24 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I've been pondering this thought recently. Whenever I think of something that exists, I can always attach it to a location either external or internal.

Is this a valid thought? Is this a sound thought? I would like to hear the opinions of others. Would it be accurate to associate that which "exists" to that which is "there"?

Like the first guy who responded, it really depends on what you mean by there. If I think of a red house in my head, that red house does not exist physically and in a could sense therefore not be there, unless there can exist in the mind also.

The fact that you even think about a red house means that somewhere in our world were objects capable of giving you that impression which then formed into the ideas you have of a red house in your head. You cannot say it doesn't exist physically unless you prove there is no object of the same nature that can be found anywhere in our physical world. I'm staring at a red house across the street from me as I type this...
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 7:00:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 6:55:10 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 8/20/2014 6:42:55 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 8/19/2014 5:17:24 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I've been pondering this thought recently. Whenever I think of something that exists, I can always attach it to a location either external or internal.

Is this a valid thought? Is this a sound thought? I would like to hear the opinions of others. Would it be accurate to associate that which "exists" to that which is "there"?

Like the first guy who responded, it really depends on what you mean by there. If I think of a red house in my head, that red house does not exist physically and in a could sense therefore not be there, unless there can exist in the mind also.

The fact that you even think about a red house means that somewhere in our world were objects capable of giving you that impression which then formed into the ideas you have of a red house in your head. You cannot say it doesn't exist physically unless you prove there is no object of the same nature that can be found anywhere in our physical world. I'm staring at a red house across the street from me as I type this...

Is it not plausible that we can imagine something that does not physically exist, even if it has the properties of something that could possibly exist? Anyways, it would be irrelevant whether the red house I am thinking of actually exists or not because the particularly red house that exists in my head has the property of existing in my head, unlike the red house that may exist physically but does not have the property of existing in my head.

That may sound confusing so I'll reword it simply:

X exists as an image in my head and X exists physically. X(1) is not the same as X(2) because only X(1) has the property of existing in my head. Since only X(1) exists in my head, there can be made a distinguishment between X(1) and X(2). Since a distinguishment can be made they necessarily cannot be the same thing.
Nolite Timere
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,035
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 7:06:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 7:00:31 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Is it not plausible that we can imagine something that does not physically exist, even if it has the properties of something that could possibly exist?

Sure, it's plausible and people do it on a daily basis. But can you truly say that such an idea exists if it cannot be demonstrated in the physical world? How do I know that you are having that idea? The best we can do is self-promote that ideas exist but no-one else can truly verify the existence of such things since it is located solely in your own mind. I just thought of a purple flying cat, but can you verify that this idea exists? No.

Anyways, it would be irrelevant whether the red house I am thinking of actually exists or not because the particularly red house that exists in my head has the property of existing in my head, unlike the red house that may exist physically but does not have the property of existing in my head.

That may sound confusing so I'll reword it simply:

X exists as an image in my head and X exists physically. X(1) is not the same as X(2) because only X(1) has the property of existing in my head. Since only X(1) exists in my head, there can be made a distinguishment between X(1) and X(2). Since a distinguishment can be made they necessarily cannot be the same thing.

No, I get what you're saying completely. The problem is what I've stated above. So I'll wait for you to read that before expanding any further.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Skikx
Posts: 132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 7:19:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 6:35:50 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 8/20/2014 6:12:53 PM, Skikx wrote:
At 8/20/2014 5:32:52 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 8/20/2014 5:28:49 PM, Skikx wrote:
At 8/19/2014 5:17:24 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I've been pondering this thought recently. Whenever I think of something that exists, I can always attach it to a location either external or internal.

Is this a valid thought? Is this a sound thought? I would like to hear the opinions of others. Would it be accurate to associate that which "exists" to that which is "there"?

So what is the location of the universe, then?

We are all encompassed by the universe. It exists all around us since we now know that we are simply creatures on a rock floating in space. We can see the universe all around us, it's been observable since man was able to look up at the stars and conceptualize that those stars are separate from ourselves. Hence why it encompasses us all.

It's like putting a round candy inside a balloon and then asking where is the balloon located in relation to the candy. One would answer that the balloon encompasses the piece of candy, just as the universe encompasses the earth.


But we are part of the universe. Therefore locating the universe in relation to us is location it in relation to itself and thus not locating it at all.

That's actually tricky. We are both a part of the universe but also clearly self-moving things within the universe itself. If anything, I'd say we are a subset of the universe. We can view the universe that is exterior or outside of our own bodies, thus there is a definite frame of reference we can use to remove ourselves from the observable universe in question. We can't just say the universe exists and is located "there" while pointing to a random person on the street.

If we only look at the universe that is exterior to us, then we are not looking at the entire universe. Only at a part of it. So you can say that part of the universe is around us, as you defined it so. Just like you can say that the part of the universe that we call "Earth" revolves around the part that we call "Sun".
But you the still don't have the location of the universe itself.
Only the relative location of one part to another.


It's like your looking for your car and I say it encompasses its motor. As true as that may be, it doesn't give you any information on your cars actual location, unless you have information on the location of your cars motor, unrelated to the car itself.

No dude, you are comparing the universe to a car, lol. The car isn't the limitations of our spatial locations, the universe is. That is the immediate problem with your example that I see. Maybe if we were motor oil and were asking the question of where the car is located. Since we would be within that system, we would say accurately that the car encompasses all that is - it works since you are merely a component of that car. But for us, a car isn't the limitations of our spatial perception, the universe and it's farthest expanses are.

I wasn't saying that the car is the limit of our spatial locations. I was simply demonstrating that information on a part of a thing is useless to locate the thing itself, if you do not have information on the location of the part that is unrelated to the thing.

But lets say is would be and we'd be sitting inside, unable to perceive anything from the outside.
The car could stand anywhere on earth, but we would not be able to tell where, no matter how many times we say that the car is around us.
We'd need to get outside for that.

And that is the problem with locating the universe, we can't get outside to look where it is.
JohnMaynardKeynes
Posts: 1,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 7:24:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 4:51:18 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 8/19/2014 7:47:54 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 8/19/2014 5:17:24 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I've been pondering this thought recently. Whenever I think of something that exists, I can always attach it to a location either external or internal.

Is this a valid thought? Is this a sound thought? I would like to hear the opinions of others. Would it be accurate to associate that which "exists" to that which is "there"?

I think it depends on what you mean by "there." I agree with you on a practical level that we ascribe objective existence a posteriori, so it would follow that we would possess locational knowledge. The problem I see with this potentially, though, is what actually related to what we discussed with bossy in a hangout about a week back: the fact that we can't know for certain, say, God's existence significantly slants whether it would be accurate to equate existence with "being there." If we were to even consider the unfalsifiable thesis that an omnipresent God "exists," technically "there" becomes "everywhere." On top of that, we may not even know what "everywhere" entails, which would be especially true with increasing evidence for a multiverse.

That side, I do generally agree with you that insofar as we are describing objective existence, it follows that we should be able to ascribe location, even vaguely -- e.g., X person lives in Y region.

I suppose under the association I gave between "to exist" and "to be there" then God, in the form of the tri-omni god, would not exist. I feel like my argument is wholly dependent on empiricist methods of observation. It's literally applicable for anything else we can run through it - aside from God. These words exist because they are found on this page, they are "there" on the page you are looking at right now. A banana exists because I can point to banana trees in South America (for example, lol). Space? It exists because it is there *pointing to the empty space between myself and this screen or up at the stars*. It seems like the only thing that puts a damper on this little parade of mine is the tri-omni god.

I must ask then, is it fair to throw out a theory because it doesn't uphold against an imaginary being?

I wouldn't throw out the theory, but I think we could differentiate between objective and subjective existence. An Idea, for instance, is "there," but "there" only exists in our minds, and we even have difficult pinpointing where exactly "there" is, and that's exacerbated by the fact that there's still much to learn about the extent to which we do or do not have free will (something else we discussed, actually!).

I think as soon as we actually understand what "there" means with respect to an idea, which would probably require us to solve the dichotomy between the mental and the physical (i.e., we're not getting there anytime soon, in my judgment), we could better answer that question.
~JohnMaynardKeynes

"The sight of my succulent backside acts as a sedative for the beholder. It soothes the pain of life and makes all which hurts seem like bliss. I urge all those stressed by ridiculous drama on DDO which will never affect your real life to gaze upon my cheeks for they will make you have an excitement and joy you've never felt before." -- Dr. Dennybug

Founder of the BSH-YYW Fan Club
Founder of the Barkalotti
Stand with Dogs and Economics
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,035
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 8:52:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 7:19:45 PM, Skikx wrote:
At 8/20/2014 6:35:50 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 8/20/2014 6:12:53 PM, Skikx wrote:
At 8/20/2014 5:32:52 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 8/20/2014 5:28:49 PM, Skikx wrote:
At 8/19/2014 5:17:24 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I've been pondering this thought recently. Whenever I think of something that exists, I can always attach it to a location either external or internal.

Is this a valid thought? Is this a sound thought? I would like to hear the opinions of others. Would it be accurate to associate that which "exists" to that which is "there"?

So what is the location of the universe, then?

We are all encompassed by the universe. It exists all around us since we now know that we are simply creatures on a rock floating in space. We can see the universe all around us, it's been observable since man was able to look up at the stars and conceptualize that those stars are separate from ourselves. Hence why it encompasses us all.

It's like putting a round candy inside a balloon and then asking where is the balloon located in relation to the candy. One would answer that the balloon encompasses the piece of candy, just as the universe encompasses the earth.


But we are part of the universe. Therefore locating the universe in relation to us is location it in relation to itself and thus not locating it at all.

That's actually tricky. We are both a part of the universe but also clearly self-moving things within the universe itself. If anything, I'd say we are a subset of the universe. We can view the universe that is exterior or outside of our own bodies, thus there is a definite frame of reference we can use to remove ourselves from the observable universe in question. We can't just say the universe exists and is located "there" while pointing to a random person on the street.

If we only look at the universe that is exterior to us, then we are not looking at the entire universe. Only at a part of it. So you can say that part of the universe is around us, as you defined it so. Just like you can say that the part of the universe that we call "Earth" revolves around the part that we call "Sun".
But you the still don't have the location of the universe itself.
Only the relative location of one part to another.

I don't think I ever said "to be there specifically"... I believe that as long as we can observe it in the physical world then it's safe to say it exists, as it is something we can experience or perceive. I can still point to the sky and say "the universe is there" and it would generally be accepted as sound because it is in fact "there". It is something we can measure, traverse through, and suffer ailments from it if found in the wrong environment/atmosphere. So, if I say the Universe exists because it is there, and then point to all that is around me, it would still work since it is something measurable and observable.

I don't think an exact spacial location would be necessary under the basic premise I've stated originally. I've just been using those as examples because they are the easiest ones to show to others. I don't think a requirement for an exact location is necessary when dealing with things that aren't necessarily objects. But I would still uphold the standard that it must be capable of being observed i.e. - seen as to be there. Under these stipulations, the universe would still exist via the premise I've given.

It's like your looking for your car and I say it encompasses its motor. As true as that may be, it doesn't give you any information on your cars actual location, unless you have information on the location of your cars motor, unrelated to the car itself.

No dude, you are comparing the universe to a car, lol. The car isn't the limitations of our spatial locations, the universe is. That is the immediate problem with your example that I see. Maybe if we were motor oil and were asking the question of where the car is located. Since we would be within that system, we would say accurately that the car encompasses all that is - it works since you are merely a component of that car. But for us, a car isn't the limitations of our spatial perception, the universe and it's farthest expanses are.

I wasn't saying that the car is the limit of our spatial locations. I was simply demonstrating that information on a part of a thing is useless to locate the thing itself, if you do not have information on the location of the part that is unrelated to the thing.

Okay, I see what you are saying and could agree without it damaging the original premise. Hopefully the response above expands a little more on the position I'm taking.

But lets say is would be and we'd be sitting inside, unable to perceive anything from the outside.
The car could stand anywhere on earth, but we would not be able to tell where, no matter how many times we say that the car is around us.
We'd need to get outside for that.

And that is the problem with locating the universe, we can't get outside to look where it is.

Yes, but this isn't really an issue against the premise because, like you said, the universe is the limitation of our observed reality. So, to ask where the universe is located in relation to some even grander scheme of things isn't a meaningful question. We can see that the universe exists by merely observing and understanding the fact that ourselves and everything we perceive is already a part of the universe.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,035
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 8:57:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 7:24:46 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 8/20/2014 4:51:18 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 8/19/2014 7:47:54 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 8/19/2014 5:17:24 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I've been pondering this thought recently. Whenever I think of something that exists, I can always attach it to a location either external or internal.

Is this a valid thought? Is this a sound thought? I would like to hear the opinions of others. Would it be accurate to associate that which "exists" to that which is "there"?

I think it depends on what you mean by "there." I agree with you on a practical level that we ascribe objective existence a posteriori, so it would follow that we would possess locational knowledge. The problem I see with this potentially, though, is what actually related to what we discussed with bossy in a hangout about a week back: the fact that we can't know for certain, say, God's existence significantly slants whether it would be accurate to equate existence with "being there." If we were to even consider the unfalsifiable thesis that an omnipresent God "exists," technically "there" becomes "everywhere." On top of that, we may not even know what "everywhere" entails, which would be especially true with increasing evidence for a multiverse.

That side, I do generally agree with you that insofar as we are describing objective existence, it follows that we should be able to ascribe location, even vaguely -- e.g., X person lives in Y region.

I suppose under the association I gave between "to exist" and "to be there" then God, in the form of the tri-omni god, would not exist. I feel like my argument is wholly dependent on empiricist methods of observation. It's literally applicable for anything else we can run through it - aside from God. These words exist because they are found on this page, they are "there" on the page you are looking at right now. A banana exists because I can point to banana trees in South America (for example, lol). Space? It exists because it is there *pointing to the empty space between myself and this screen or up at the stars*. It seems like the only thing that puts a damper on this little parade of mine is the tri-omni god.

I must ask then, is it fair to throw out a theory because it doesn't uphold against an imaginary being?

I wouldn't throw out the theory, but I think we could differentiate between objective and subjective existence. An Idea, for instance, is "there," but "there" only exists in our minds, and we even have difficult pinpointing where exactly "there" is, and that's exacerbated by the fact that there's still much to learn about the extent to which we do or do not have free will (something else we discussed, actually!).

I think as soon as we actually understand what "there" means with respect to an idea, which would probably require us to solve the dichotomy between the mental and the physical (i.e., we're not getting there anytime soon, in my judgment), we could better answer that question.

I agree completely. In this case, I meant "there" as something which can be pointed to or observed within the physical reality. It's hard to determine the existence of an idea aside from our own ideas since we can't measure or verify if the idea's of others are actually in there heads or not. I kinda expanded on this in another response but basically I can say I think about something but there is no way of you verifying that I thought of that thing or not. What we can observe or point to in the physical reality is what we can claim exists with surety.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
JohnMaynardKeynes
Posts: 1,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 9:00:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 8:57:12 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:

I agree completely. In this case, I meant "there" as something which can be pointed to or observed within the physical reality. It's hard to determine the existence of an idea aside from our own ideas since we can't measure or verify if the idea's of others are actually in there heads or not. I kinda expanded on this in another response but basically I can say I think about something but there is no way of you verifying that I thought of that thing or not. What we can observe or point to in the physical reality is what we can claim exists with surety.

That's a good point. I'm almost tempted to, since I'm probably leaning toward a straight physicalist, to think that ideas are (almost) strictly physical in which we should be able to point to X impulse triggering Y effect -- I wish I knew something about neuroscience, lol. I guess we're in agreement that, barring advances in neuroscience, we'll never be able to answer the question fully.
~JohnMaynardKeynes

"The sight of my succulent backside acts as a sedative for the beholder. It soothes the pain of life and makes all which hurts seem like bliss. I urge all those stressed by ridiculous drama on DDO which will never affect your real life to gaze upon my cheeks for they will make you have an excitement and joy you've never felt before." -- Dr. Dennybug

Founder of the BSH-YYW Fan Club
Founder of the Barkalotti
Stand with Dogs and Economics
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,035
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 9:58:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 9:00:24 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 8/20/2014 8:57:12 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:

I agree completely. In this case, I meant "there" as something which can be pointed to or observed within the physical reality. It's hard to determine the existence of an idea aside from our own ideas since we can't measure or verify if the idea's of others are actually in there heads or not. I kinda expanded on this in another response but basically I can say I think about something but there is no way of you verifying that I thought of that thing or not. What we can observe or point to in the physical reality is what we can claim exists with surety.

That's a good point. I'm almost tempted to, since I'm probably leaning toward a straight physicalist, to think that ideas are (almost) strictly physical in which we should be able to point to X impulse triggering Y effect -- I wish I knew something about neuroscience, lol. I guess we're in agreement that, barring advances in neuroscience, we'll never be able to answer the question fully.

That's brilliant actually. If we managed to do that, then we could definitely bring 'ideas' into the realm of physical existence. It would give us a way to map out the process in a physical reality rather than abstract concept. I just thoroughly believe that if we can observe something, literally have the ability to say "there" there it is! That's the key to this premise for me when determining that which exists or not.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 7:29:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 7:06:16 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 8/20/2014 7:00:31 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Is it not plausible that we can imagine something that does not physically exist, even if it has the properties of something that could possibly exist?

Sure, it's plausible and people do it on a daily basis. But can you truly say that such an idea exists if it cannot be demonstrated in the physical world?

I would say yes. Something doesn't have to exist physically to exist.

How do I know that you are having that idea?

What doesn't need to know something exists for it to exist.

The best we can do is self-promote that ideas exist but no-one else can truly verify the existence of such things since it is located solely in your own mind. I just thought of a purple flying cat, but can you verify that this idea exists? No.

What does verifying existence have to do with existence itself? And more relevant to the discussion, what does this have to do with the topic at hand?

Anyways, it would be irrelevant whether the red house I am thinking of actually exists or not because the particularly red house that exists in my head has the property of existing in my head, unlike the red house that may exist physically but does not have the property of existing in my head.

That may sound confusing so I'll reword it simply:

X exists as an image in my head and X exists physically. X(1) is not the same as X(2) because only X(1) has the property of existing in my head. Since only X(1) exists in my head, there can be made a distinguishment between X(1) and X(2). Since a distinguishment can be made they necessarily cannot be the same thing.

No, I get what you're saying completely. The problem is what I've stated above. So I'll wait for you to read that before expanding any further.
Nolite Timere
Skikx
Posts: 132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 12:34:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 8:52:30 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 8/20/2014 7:19:45 PM, Skikx wrote:
At 8/20/2014 6:35:50 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 8/20/2014 6:12:53 PM, Skikx wrote:
At 8/20/2014 5:32:52 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 8/20/2014 5:28:49 PM, Skikx wrote:
At 8/19/2014 5:17:24 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I've been pondering this thought recently. Whenever I think of something that exists, I can always attach it to a location either external or internal.

Is this a valid thought? Is this a sound thought? I would like to hear the opinions of others. Would it be accurate to associate that which "exists" to that which is "there"?

So what is the location of the universe, then?

We are all encompassed by the universe. It exists all around us since we now know that we are simply creatures on a rock floating in space. We can see the universe all around us, it's been observable since man was able to look up at the stars and conceptualize that those stars are separate from ourselves. Hence why it encompasses us all.

It's like putting a round candy inside a balloon and then asking where is the balloon located in relation to the candy. One would answer that the balloon encompasses the piece of candy, just as the universe encompasses the earth.


But we are part of the universe. Therefore locating the universe in relation to us is location it in relation to itself and thus not locating it at all.

That's actually tricky. We are both a part of the universe but also clearly self-moving things within the universe itself. If anything, I'd say we are a subset of the universe. We can view the universe that is exterior or outside of our own bodies, thus there is a definite frame of reference we can use to remove ourselves from the observable universe in question. We can't just say the universe exists and is located "there" while pointing to a random person on the street.

If we only look at the universe that is exterior to us, then we are not looking at the entire universe. Only at a part of it. So you can say that part of the universe is around us, as you defined it so. Just like you can say that the part of the universe that we call "Earth" revolves around the part that we call "Sun".
But you the still don't have the location of the universe itself.
Only the relative location of one part to another.

I don't think I ever said "to be there specifically"... I believe that as long as we can observe it in the physical world then it's safe to say it exists, as it is something we can experience or perceive. I can still point to the sky and say "the universe is there" and it would generally be accepted as sound because it is in fact "there". It is something we can measure, traverse through, and suffer ailments from it if found in the wrong environment/atmosphere. So, if I say the Universe exists because it is there, and then point to all that is around me, it would still work since it is something measurable and observable.

I don't think an exact spacial location would be necessary under the basic premise I've stated originally. I've just been using those as examples because they are the easiest ones to show to others. I don't think a requirement for an exact location is necessary when dealing with things that aren't necessarily objects. But I would still uphold the standard that it must be capable of being observed i.e. - seen as to be there. Under these stipulations, the universe would still exist via the premise I've given.

It's like your looking for your car and I say it encompasses its motor. As true as that may be, it doesn't give you any information on your cars actual location, unless you have information on the location of your cars motor, unrelated to the car itself.

No dude, you are comparing the universe to a car, lol. The car isn't the limitations of our spatial locations, the universe is. That is the immediate problem with your example that I see. Maybe if we were motor oil and were asking the question of where the car is located. Since we would be within that system, we would say accurately that the car encompasses all that is - it works since you are merely a component of that car. But for us, a car isn't the limitations of our spatial perception, the universe and it's farthest expanses are.

I wasn't saying that the car is the limit of our spatial locations. I was simply demonstrating that information on a part of a thing is useless to locate the thing itself, if you do not have information on the location of the part that is unrelated to the thing.

Okay, I see what you are saying and could agree without it damaging the original premise. Hopefully the response above expands a little more on the position I'm taking.

But lets say is would be and we'd be sitting inside, unable to perceive anything from the outside.
The car could stand anywhere on earth, but we would not be able to tell where, no matter how many times we say that the car is around us.
We'd need to get outside for that.

And that is the problem with locating the universe, we can't get outside to look where it is.

Yes, but this isn't really an issue against the premise because, like you said, the universe is the limitation of our observed reality. So, to ask where the universe is located in relation to some even grander scheme of things isn't a meaningful question. We can see that the universe exists by merely observing and understanding the fact that ourselves and everything we perceive is already a part of the universe.

I feel like this has gone somewhat in the wrong direction.

From what I read (here and in your replies to others) you define "to be there" as to be observable. I wouldn't necessarily agree with that definition, though I agree that everything that is observable also exists. And everything that exists is or at least has the potential to be observable.

However, if you reduce existence to being there in a spatial sense, I disagree.
Is a dream spatial? Surely you could argue that our brain and the neurons in inhibit space. But does the imagine we see while dreaming actually exists as a spatial thing?

Now back to the universe itself. If space is part of the universe itself, we cannot assign any spacial location to the universe. We can observe, we can say it is around us, we are part of it. But we can not say the universe exists within space, as space already exists within the universe.

And further wasn't space created during the big bang, with the universe or its predecessor existing without space.
Don't quantum fluctuations exists without space, as they are creating space while they are happening?