Do Orbits exist?

[luckyme]

I'm interested in posters views on what they mean when they say something 'exists'. ( please no Merriam-Webster).

My own view is that the existee must interact with other existee's in the universe. It may be matter, like a brick or it may be a force, like magnetism.

The brick is red, like the apple.
The rock is hard, like the glass.
The sausage exists, like the orbit.

hmmm...it doesn't work for 'exist', whatever existential property of sausages 'exist' carries, it doesn't transfer to things like orbits, running or unicorns.

I'm not suggesting this is any standard or accepted view, but I like it because it makes 'exist' mean something :-)

luckyme

[Sharkey]

Would the nonexistence of the thing in question lead to consequences other than those currently observed?

If so, its existence is real.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Would the nonexistence of the thing in question lead to consequences other than those currently observed?

If so, its existence is real.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong answer. That would mean that things could exists and yet at a later stage not exists.

Orbit is agood example for that, since for a long time, epople believed that did exists and, in fact, where some evidence of intelligent design.

Nowadays, we know, that orbits are neither circular no elipses, that have all sorts of wobbles and distortions caused by other bodies etc. So much so, that NASA cannot plan a precision encouter with a planetary object without adjustments to its course during the mission absed on feedback.

According to sharkey that would mean that orbits did exist, when we knew no better, and now they don't anymore. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Sharkey looses again.

[bunny]

I think existence is a property of the universe and not the object. So when I say "Object A exists" I mean "The universe contains object A". Here, I mean universe of discourse, rather than the physical universe.

I also believe it is proper to speak of a relationship between two objects existing (and I think this covers your running and orbit examples). Again, I would claim the phenomenon exists because the universe contains those two objects and they are in a certain relationship to each other. Running seems to me to be the process an object changing in a variety of ways over time - an instance of running exists where there is a particular object changing in that way over a given period of time. Running in general exists as a collective term for all such instances.

I would claim an orbit exists also - it is the path traced out through space by some object over time. With Midge's example of our changing concept of orbit I think that is a problem with our understanding rather than an illustration that orbit doesnt exist. I think the path is the true orbit - circular orbits dont exist (we were wrong there), elliptic orbits dont exist (wrong again) perturbed orbits do (although our measurement of them is innacurate and we are technically wrong once more, just less so /images/graemlins/tongue.gif)

This is not very well expressed - let me repeat that I think existence is a property of the universe of discourse, not the object and that non-physical "things" can exist if the universe contains them.

[bunny]

With regard to the unicorn example - my view allows me to say they exist as stories, or ideas but dont as physical objects. I think this is a strength as this seems intuitively correct.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
The sausage exists, like the orbit.

hmmm...it doesn't work for 'exist', whatever existential property of sausages 'exist' carries, it doesn't transfer to things like orbits, running or unicorns.


[/ QUOTE ]
Another thought - I think the problem here is that you have chosen two different objects (A brick is red, like the sky doesnt work either).

How about "Orbits exist, like running."?

[guesswest]

[ QUOTE ]
With regard to the unicorn example - my view allows me to say they exist as stories, or ideas but dont as physical objects. I think this is a strength as this seems intuitively correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does it mean anything to say something exists conceptually though? What doesn't?

Seems it's already true, necessarily and by definition, if you're able to question it in the first place.

[atrifix]

[ QUOTE ]
I also believe it is proper to speak of a relationship between two objects existing (and I think this covers your running and orbit examples). Again, I would claim the phenomenon exists because the universe contains those two objects and they are in a certain relationship to each other. Running seems to me to be the process an object changing in a variety of ways over time - an instance of running exists where there is a particular object changing in that way over a given period of time. Running in general exists as a collective term for all such instances.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think there is anything logically wrong with such a view, but my (default) view is that relations between things don't "exist", or, more precisely, that it doesn't make sense to speak of those things existing or not (I'm not sure how to interpret the claim "Running exists"). I'm not sure that this is any better or worse than bunny's view, but it seems more intuitive to me.

[Sharkey]

Also, an orbit is a state of constant (kinetic + potential) energy which if changed would lead to measurable consequences.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Does it mean anything to say something exists conceptually though? What doesn't?

[/ QUOTE ]

That seems along the lines that brought me to demanding something of 'exist'. Why bother with such a word if it applies to everything conceivable we already have a concept for that ..."everything conceivable".

I simply prefer a way of differentiating between some of things I can conceive of, and I like 'exist' to be one of those ways.
"Exist = I can conceive of it" is not an uncommon usage, I just don't need it.

luckyme

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Does it mean anything to say something exists conceptually though? What doesn't?

[/ QUOTE ]

That seems along the lines that brought me to demanding something of 'exist'. Why bother with such a word if it applies to everything conceivable we already have a concept for that ..."everything conceivable".

I simply prefer a way of differentiating between some of things I can conceive of, and I like 'exist' to be one of those ways.
"Exist = I can conceive of it" is not an uncommon usage, I just don't need it.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you can differentiate based on limiting your universe of discourse (sticking to my rather clumsy terminology). So I think bricks exist physically, running exists extending the universe to include physical relationships, unicorns exist extending it further to include anything conceptual. It still has an ultimate meaning, but things which dont exist in any way are few and far between - a square circle is my favorite example. I dont think a square circle exists. The fact my sentence seems to refer to one is an error in language - I am attempting to refer to a non-existant object.

The reason I prefer this is that it allows you to easily distinguish between objects such as unicorns and "objects" such as running. I expect you have some intuition that running exists "more" than unicorns do, no?

I dont see any problem with this - restricting ourselves exclusively to physical objects seems an unnecessary limitation (and within the broad scheme that I am advocating it is still possible to do so eg - "Do unicorns physically exist?")

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, an orbit is a state of constant (kinetic + potential) energy which if changed would lead to measurable consequences.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's too circular.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
It still has an ultimate meaning, but things which dont exist in any way are few and far between - a square circle is my favorite example. I dont think a square circle exists. The fact my sentence seems to refer to one is an error in language - I am attempting to refer to a non-existant object.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't seem to work for me. My unicorn with the square-circle eyes keeps blinking in and out of existance.

luckyme

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't seem to work for me. My unicorn with the square-circle eyes keeps blinking in and out of existance.


[/ QUOTE ]
What do you mean? I think unicorns with square circle eyes dont exist. (I cant believe I just typed that sentence. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif) I am struggling to see the problem now...

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, an orbit is a state of constant (kinetic + potential) energy which if changed would lead to measurable consequences.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's too circular.

[/ QUOTE ]

It can also be hyperbolic.

[billygrippo]

[ QUOTE ]

The sausage exists, like the orbit.

[/ QUOTE ]


this made me lol

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, an orbit is a state of constant (kinetic + potential) energy which if changed would lead to measurable consequences.

[/ QUOTE ]

An orbit can't be changed .
If an object didn't take an assumed path, then that wasn't it's orbit. that's related to the issue Midge raised ... just because we thought it took a certain route doesn't mean it took it.
Footprints only show behind you.

luckyme

[chezlaw]

Its possibly the same as what Bunny says but Orbit is a description of a state of affairs and saying an orbit exists is saying that the described state of affairs is true.

It doesn't contradict your definition, its just a different way of using the word.

chez

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Its possibly the same as what Bunny says but Orbit is a description of a state of affairs and saying an orbit exists is saying that the described state of affairs is true.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Big Dipper is a state of affairs, and more obvious than orbits, I can even show you a picture of it. It sounds like it exists for Bunny and you, perhaps not for sharkey ( ?, I don't think his definition is tuned enough), and not for me. I think Bunnies use of it is fairly normal, it doesn't seem to have much utility, a ubiquitous property does not permit any classification.

One test I use is - if sentient beings are wiped out tomorrow, what's left "exists". A more advanced species may not see the movement of planets in terms of 'orbits' at all, but look right at the relativistic relationships involved. Orbits may seem to them as the moon being pushed by chariot gods.

remember, I'm not claiming anything, just probing worldviews, luckyme

[chezlaw]

Post deleted by chezlaw

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Its possibly the same as what Bunny says but Orbit is a description of a state of affairs and saying an orbit exists is saying that the described state of affairs is true.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Big Dipper is a state of affairs, and more obvious than orbits, I can even show you a picture of it. It sounds like it exists for Bunny and you, perhaps not for sharkey ( ?, I don't think his definition is tuned enough), and not for me. I think Bunnies use of it is fairly normal, it doesn't seem to have much utility, a ubiquitous property does not permit any classification.

One test I use is - if sentient beings are wiped out tomorrow, what's left "exists". A more advanced species may not see the movement of planets in terms of 'orbits' at all, but look right at the relativistic relationships involved. Orbits may seem to them as the moon being pushed by chariot gods.

remember, I'm not claiming anything, just probing worldviews, luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm just probing too. The big dipper is the name for an arrangement of stars. If its true that that arrangement of stars is as described then the big dipper exists. The arrangement of stars may be able to change a great deal and still fit the description but if all the stars explode then the big dipper will cease to exist. I'm not sure what you mean by utility - seems very useful to me (in general, not sure how useful the big dipper is).

We're not really saying anything different in terms of what exists, saying the big dipper exists is just shorthand for saying something else.

If the moon keeps going round the earth when no sentient beings exist then nothing changes about the existence of orbits. Descriptions in the sense I mean do not imply the existence of a describer.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
So I think bricks exist physically, running exists extending the universe to include physical relationships, unicorns exist extending it further to include anything conceptual.

[/ QUOTE ]

As far as categories go, those would seem to have some utility. In some sense ( I include forces in 'exist') I start with two divisions, 'exist' and 'not exist'. Running, Orbits, Unicorns seem in the category of "He's a douchebag" and seem to need "in my opinion" added to them. I'm trying to have 'existence' not depend on my input.

It's not actually the 'word' I'm dealing with but the property it is representing. Your modifiers may accomplish something similar. Sharkey's idea that orbits contain energy is perhaps the type of claim that stirred up my interest in this area years back. Since orbits only exist in my head, it's hard to credit them with a horn or wings.

thanks for the assist, luckyme

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't seem to work for me. My unicorn with the square-circle eyes keeps blinking in and out of existance.


[/ QUOTE ]
What do you mean? I think unicorns with square circle eyes dont exist. (I cant believe I just typed that sentence. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif) I am struggling to see the problem now...

[/ QUOTE ]
Does this make sense:

Unicorn is a description of something that doesn't exist therefore we say 'unicorns don't exist'

The description of unicorn, 'unicorn' exists because it describes a description and the description of unicorn (horse with horn) does exist.

Square cirlcle is meaningless so not only do square circles not exist but nor does the description of a circle as square. As you say, its a mistake of language to talk of square circles.

chez

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
If the moon keeps going round the earth when no sentient beings exist then nothing changes about the existence of orbits.

[/ QUOTE ]

hahahahaaha, true enough. you would say they still exist, I would say they still don't.

[ QUOTE ]
Descriptions in the sense I mean do not imply the existence of a describer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I undertand that, but not having much success in making it work. I do struggle with the Big Dipper existing for a rock. Patterns, static or not, do seem very describer dependent. 'The pattern is out there we just have to find it' seems to have the situation reversed. We bring the pattern to the situation .. the universe simply 'is'.

Desciberless discriptions ...hmmmm...what's coming next - food without eaters ? :-))

thanks, chez, you're always stimulating, luckyme

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Descriptions in the sense I mean do not imply the existence of a describer.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I think I undertand that, but not having much success in making it work. I do struggle with the Big Dipper existing for a rock. Patterns, static or not, do seem very describer dependent. 'The pattern is out there we just have to find it' seems to have the situation reversed. We bring the pattern to the situation .. the universe simply 'is'.

Desciberless discriptions ...hmmmm...what's coming next - food without eaters ? :-))

[/ QUOTE ]

When I said 'Descriptions in the sense I mean do not imply the existence of a describer' I did not mean to imply that there could be 'Desciberless discriptions' /images/graemlins/grin.gif

I'm thinking of a description as being a set of proposition that could all be true. Saying the description exists is shorthand for saying that all the propositions are true in our world.

Whether the set of propositions requires sentience for existence is a bit like asking if the integers require sentience for existence. Too tough for me.

As for food then it depends. Is a lump of cheese that never gets eaten food?

chez

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Unicorn is a description of something that doesn't exist therefore we say 'unicorns don't exist'

The description of unicorn, 'unicorn' exists because it describes a description and the description of unicorn (horse with horn) does exist.

Square cirlcle is meaningless so not only do square circles not exist but nor does the description of a circle as square

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet, I seem to understand what you are describing with 'square-circle', so a description has been exchanged. In some ways 'square-circle' seems as clear as 'unicorn'.

I suppose it's the solopsist twinge that this 'description' approach has that makes me want to oppose it. I'm trying to use 'exist' without the me-ness. perhaps unsucessfully.

luckyme

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Yet, I seem to understand what you are describing with 'square-circle', so a description has been exchanged. In some ways 'square-circle' seems as clear as 'unicorn'.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you saw a horse with a horn you would recognise it as a unicorn. The same cannot be said for a square circle can it?

Can you tell me anything about what a square circle would be like?

chez

[atrifix]

http://jas.faximum.com/tgm/room_1/images/ayas.gif

[bocablkr]

Orbits exist - God does not.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
As for food then it depends. Is a lump of cheese that never gets eaten food?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not food if there exists nothing that would or could use it as food. WHen the mice go exinct, there goes a food group. That seems to tie into you concept of 'descriptions'.

I'm trying to find a way to get your 'description' view to work for me. It still seems at the level of 'running'. No me, no running, no unicorns, no descriptions of unicorns.

You're likely right about there being not much substantive difference in what we're representing but I'm enjoying trying to see it from your viewpoint. Maybe a few more read-throughs, ... sigh.

thanks chez, luckyme

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
http://jas.faximum.com/tgm/room_1/images/ayas.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
<insert picture of smiley smoking a pipe wearing socks, sandles and a Richard Clayderman t-shirt>

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not food if there exists nothing that would or could use it as food. WHen the mice go exinct, there goes a food group. That seems to tie into you concept of 'descriptions'.

[/ QUOTE ]
maybe if you define food in terms of it potentially being eaten by something that exists. but we could define food in terms of its properties, something to do with its ability to allow for the easy release of energy.

Otherwise the mice go extinct and it ceases to be food, then later something similar to mice evolve and it becomes food again but nothing about the cheese changed. What if there was only one cheese-eater living on a planet a billion light years away from the cheese - is it still food?

[ QUOTE ]
I'm trying to find a way to get your 'description' view to work for me. It still seems at the level of 'running'. No me, no running, no unicorns, no descriptions of unicorns.

[/ QUOTE ]
What about integers?

chez

[luckyme]

The universe simply 'is'.
We can define cheese any way that suits our needs. It doesn't exist as 'cheese' or 'food', it exists. Different categories for us at different times is an input issue.

Integers - no. The one apple or two moons 'are' but there is no place for our needed representation of quantity differences to occupy. Non-sentience may align, say, 2x2 but there is no integers involved, that's merely our spin on it, our description.

huff, pufff, hufff... he panted.

luckyme

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
The universe simply 'is'.
We can define cheese any way that suits our needs. It doesn't exist as 'cheese' or 'food', it exists. Different categories for us at different times is an input issue.

Integers - no. The one apple or two moons 'are' but there is no place for our needed representation of quantity differences to occupy. Non-sentience may align, say, 2x2 but there is no integers involved, that's merely our spin on it, our description.

huff, pufff, hufff... he panted.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
So, in your view, the integers are invented not discovered?

I'm unconvinced either way but I still think we're just using words differently.

Could we get into more trouble by saying by your definition the moon doesn't exist, its just a categorisation of the way the universe is.

chez

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Could we get into more trouble by saying by your definition the moon doesn't exist, its just a categorisation of the way the universe is.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a communication issue. I don't claim the cheese or the moon ( or a combination of the two) doesn't exist, in fact I insist they do ( by my philosophical approach). There's just no reason to be wedded to their category as cheese or moon, not that the categorization is 'wrong', if it gets me to look where you're pointing then it's 'right' in that sense.

luckyme

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
One test I use is - if sentient beings are wiped out tomorrow, what's left "exists".

[/ QUOTE ]

If all sentient beings were wiped out tomorrow how does anything at all exist? Including orbits. I would describe that which exists as: if all but two sentient beings were wiped out tomorrow that which “exists” is what those two beings agree on. ( Unless of course they’re both delusional, in which case, I would want more and more sentient beings agreeing on what does and does not exist.)

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
So, in your view, the integers are invented not discovered?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is unclear how you mean that. Fibonacci is perhaps helpful here. The nature of physical properties results in a lot of fibonacci structure in the universe. That does not mean that anything is out there counting off some 1,1,2...

probably not helpful, but I'm not sure the question has any more meaning than 'does round exist in nature'.

luckyme

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
If all sentient beings were wiped out tomorrow how does anything at all exist?

[/ QUOTE ]

"I perceive, therefore It is." Too close to solipsism for my taste. Not that I argue against solipsism.. how could I :-)

luckyme

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, in your view, the integers are invented not discovered?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is unclear how you mean that. Fibonacci is perhaps helpful here. The nature of physical properties results in a lot of fibonacci structure in the universe. That does not mean that anything is out there counting off some 1,1,2...

probably not helpful, but I'm not sure the question has any more meaning than 'does round exist in nature'.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
I.m not sure the question has any meaning but its the one we seem to be discussing /images/graemlins/smile.gif

integers, round, set of true propositions (description). Do they exist or not, its either a hard question or a non-question.

chez

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
I perceive, therefore It is." Too close to solipsism for my taste. Not that I argue against solipsism.. how could I :-)


[/ QUOTE ]

Solipsism says that nothing exists beyond one’s self. I’m saying just the contrary, that there is only existence if it can be communicated to another.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I perceive, therefore It is." Too close to solipsism for my taste. Not that I argue against solipsism.. how could I :-)


[/ QUOTE ]

Solipsism says that nothing exists beyond one’s self. I’m saying just the contrary, that there is only existence if it can be communicated to another.

[/ QUOTE ]
refuting 'I think therefore I am'?

chez

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
refuting 'I think therefore I am'?



[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe, "I think, therefore I am" necessarily follows. I believe there must be a consensus of " I think ".

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]

I.m not sure the question has any meaning but its the one we seem to be discussing

[/ QUOTE ]

"seem" being the key. It's not unusual that it takes a lot of discussion to discover people are talking about the same concept but using different words, or talking about different concepts and using the same words.

And those are often the good discussions :-)

What I was trying to describe was that given my premise of an external reality, given that I can't see any way of getting past correlation then questions about correspondence seem ... ok, I don't know the term, but "no meaningful answer" or some such must be in contention.

Perhaps I'm simply more of a materialist,

luckyme

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe, "I think, therefore I am" necessarily follows. I believe there must be a consensus of " I think ".

[/ QUOTE ]

One person can't think. Another one comes up the drive and thinking kicks in. What starts it, and in which one of the two?

luckyme.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I.m not sure the question has any meaning but its the one we seem to be discussing

[/ QUOTE ]

"seem" being the key. It's not unusual that it takes a lot of discussion to discover people are talking about the same concept but using different words, or talking about different concepts and using the same words.

And those are often the good discussions :-)

What I was trying to describe was that given my premise of an external reality, given that I can't see any way of getting past correlation then questions about correspondence seem ... ok, I don't know the term, but "no meaningful answer" or some such must be in contention.

Perhaps I'm simply more of a materialist,

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
As much to my suprise no one else has said it yet, I shall finish off for the moment by saying.

Existence is not a predicate.

I'm off to do some night-dreaming.

chez

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
What starts it, and in which one of the two?



[/ QUOTE ]

Beats me. I think it takes a web work of thinkers to create reality.

[luckyme]

thanks chez, very helpful

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it takes a web work of thinkers to create reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

It sorta spoils the viewpoint of single cell entities slowly evolving into thinkers. We need a 'poof' event so these thinkers can emerge into reality... no, let's see, there'd be no reality and then ...

ok, you'll have to spell it out a bit, how do these thinkers show up ( I don't want to tie you down by the question, I hope you know what I mean).

interesting, luckyme

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
ok, you'll have to spell it out a bit, how do these thinkers show up

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I have no real idea. I once opined that perhaps God is the ultimate thinker, but I was shot down by everyone and his pet dog, so I have to say, I don't know.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I once opined that perhaps God is the ultimate thinker, but I was shot down by everyone and his pet do

[/ QUOTE ]

For good reason ! well, if they figured you were talking about the god on the tv series this week. He claims to have created moons before thinkers, so it does shoot down your 'two thinkers create reality' version of creationism.

If you have a personalized version in mind, have at it but that does make it look like you had an interesting idea ( two thinkers create reality) ran into a conceptual snag and pulled your own version of 'god of the gaps'.

Since that is a philisophically uninteresting dead-end, perhaps they did you a big favour.

luckyme

[yukoncpa]

Post deleted by yukoncpa

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
For good reason ! well, if they figured you were talking about the god on the tv series this week. He claims to have created moons before thinkers, so it does shoot down your 'two thinkers create reality' version of creationism.


[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, I'm not talking about any God on any t.v. series or any God created by Cecil B. Demilles or Christians or Jews or Buddhists. I'm simply talking about what it takes to make reality. A Thinker. Plus another thinker. Plus another. etc. etc. Who these thinkers are is simply my version of God... who is just an original thinker. Nothing more or less.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems indeed to be a dead end,

[/ QUOTE ]

I find coming to a tough spot in a philosophical or scientific analysis and shrugging and saying, "oh, I guess god did it." is the end ( dead is optional).
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry you find the whole thing to be uninteresting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Often it's very interesting until the dead-end explanation is offered. Once we have the answer, yes, the question becomes uninteresting, how could it not. What's left... sit and stare at it?

luckyme

[yukoncpa]

Hi,
You replied before I deleted my post. Of course you're right. Please read my other post and respond.
thanks

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Dude, I'm not talking about any God

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, but I was supposed to divine that how?
[ QUOTE ]
simply my version of God

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have a list of each persons version. Nice to have one to call on when the explanations get tough.

If it works for you, you are blessed.

Calling in a personalized god when I run into a head-scratcher simply doesn't do anything for me. I don't get that "aha, I have the answer" experience... just the opposite.

everyone is different, luckyme

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dude, I'm not talking about any God


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Ah, but I was supposed to divine that how?

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

simply my version of God


[/ QUOTE ]

Luckyme, you did some creative editing here. I'm not preaching to anyone at all concerning God. I don't care at all about anyone's conception of God. All I'm attempting to do is come up with an idea about reality. My idea simply is that it takes a consensus to create reality. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

[luckyme]

yukoncpa,

my best friend is a solipsist so I don't have a direct problem with people holding views I find topsy -turvy. We don't discuss many topics from his viewpoint, and we have many... because, what's to discuss.

same type of point, entering at a different spot, is what I'm trying to express to you,
hope you understand,

thanks, luckyme

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Luckyme, you did some creative editing here. I'm not preaching to anyone at all concerning God. I don't care at all about anyone's conception of God. All I'm attempting to do is come up with an idea about reality. My idea simply is that it takes a consensus to create reality. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't take it as preaching .. not in the least. I just find invoking the supernatural ( if you take that the way i intend it) is a conversation killer. Even if it's right !!

thanks for your patience, luckyme

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
I just find invoking the supernatural ( if you take that the way i intend it) is a conversation killer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you’re quite right, and I need to learn to quit invoking conversation stoppers into my arguments as I do enjoy learned debate.
Thanks

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, you’re quite right, and I need to learn to quit invoking conversation stoppers into my arguments as I do enjoy learned debate.

[/ QUOTE ]

It may not be a problem for others so don't run to far with this idea. I just sort of sit with my jaw dropped when it pops up in an exchange I'm having .... what can I say at that stage but, "uh, well, ok... and hows the wife".

Maybe there's a way around it, but I don't have any interest in saying, "look, you can't have a personal god... yaddda" those conversation are NOT fun.

good luck in your explorations, luckyme

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe there's a way around it, but I don't have any interest in saying, "look, you can't have a personal god... yaddda" those conversation are NOT fun.



[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I don't have a personal God, and I do admit that these sorts of conversations aren't fun. Sorry if this whole thing seemed like a "God" thing. I was simply, at first, trying to respond to your original post.

[siegfriedandroy]

How do you know that God does not exist?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]

How do you know that God does not exist?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think sharkey's definition of exist precludes it, but this thread is more concerned with orbits. Perhaps one day on here somebody will show some interest in a 'does god exist' thread.

luckyme

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I was simply, at first, trying to respond to your original post.

[/ QUOTE ]

My op was aimed at the problem that so many discussions center on 'exist' and no two people seem to have the same definition of that ( as this thread illustrated ... and we didn't even get to many of the extremo's on either end).

Even chezlaw and I, who seem to have a fair bit of common philosophical ground, take a lot of sparring to set up enough foundation so an 'existence' exchange can have some meaning.

A necessary introduction to a philosophical debate is "define x".

Remember our 'god' misstep. Now sig pops in and asks about god's existance. No defining HIS god, no defining HIS existance. cheeesh. After chez and I spent all those posts and where were we ... at CHEESE !!

Sometimes sig's world does seem easier ( oh, sorry sig, didn't see ya there).

luckyme

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
I spent all those posts and where were we ... at CHEESE !!



[/ QUOTE ]

I truly did read your's and Chez's conversation and tried to interject some additional depth into it. Seeing as how it ended in Cheese, I thought I could do no wrong. Sorry for a debacle I may have inadvertantly created.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I truly did read your's and Chez's conversation and tried to interject some additional depth into it.

[/ QUOTE ]

thanks, if it got any deeper the chinese would be able to ransom us. That was not cheese-lite.

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry for a debacle I may have inadvertantly created.

[/ QUOTE ]

No debacle from here. Look how easily our recent sort-out enabled me to recognize the pitfalls in sigs question, saving him the frustration you must have went through. He owes ya one.

luckyme

[pilliwinks]

I agree that existence is not a useful predicate.

Take unicorns. They clearly exist - I am looking at one right now, among my daughter's toys. The statement 'unicorns clearly exist' is not helpful, since many will misinterpret me to be claiming that the mythological virgin-loving beast exists. Even if you carefully specify exactly what it is that you are claiming exists, I don't think you have added anything to the careful description of the object when you say 'and it exists'.

What I mean is, your confidence in asserting existence comes from inference from sense data and/or logic. But that description of the object is not altered by whether or not you attribute existence to it. I think I'm claiming that the following two sentences are equivalent:

1. An orbital (which we accept as a the best available model of the underlying inaccessible reality) has the following characteristics X Y and Z according to our experiments.

2. Orbitals exist. By orbitals I mean the best available model of the underlying inaccessible reality, with the characteristics X Y and Z.

I think the second formulation is less useful, though it is popular in secondary schools (and wherever Gnosticism is rife).

Some will still claim that the question "does Santa exist or not" is a legitimate one, but I would say a far better question is "what is the evidence for Santa?"

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think you have added anything to the careful description of the object when you say 'and it exists'.

[/ QUOTE ]

You won't know if I have grasped that short statement unless you're confident we're on the same wavelength with -
"I, think, anything, description,object, and exist".

I totally lack that confidence, and evidence from the rest of your post justifies that.

that won't be a surprise to you, luckyme

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
An orbit can't be changed .
If an object didn't take an assumed path, then that wasn't it's orbit. that's related to the issue Midge raised ... just because we thought it took a certain route doesn't mean it took it.
Footprints only show behind you.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Like before: Would the non-existence of the thing in question lead to consequences inconsistent with what is currently observed? If so, the thing exists.

An orbit is a unique and measurable path of constant energy given initial conditions. Even if no object ever follows the path, it is there anyway. The orbit exists as a confirmable reality.

[pilliwinks]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think you have added anything to the careful description of the object when you say 'and it exists'.

[/ QUOTE ]

You won't know if I have grasped that short statement unless you're confident we're on the same wavelength with -
"I, think, anything, description,object, and exist".

I totally lack that confidence, and evidence from the rest of your post justifies that.

that won't be a surprise to you, luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, it is a surprise. I thought I was being clear there.

I agree that it helps to have shared language referents to communicate, but I had no idea that the concept of 'I' was controversial in this context. Or indeed any of the other words used, with the exception of 'exists' which was the point of the discussion.

If you disagree with my view on 'exists', by all means explain why, but it sounds like you're using the 'give up now, for language is futile' exit clause.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think you have added anything to the careful description of the object when you say 'and it exists'.

[/ QUOTE ]

You won't know if I have grasped that short statement unless you're confident we're on the same wavelength with -
"I, think, anything, description,object, and exist".

I totally lack that confidence, and evidence from the rest of your post justifies that.

that won't be a surprise to you, luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, it is a surprise. I thought I was being clear there.

I agree that it helps to have shared language referents to communicate, but I had no idea that the concept of 'I' was controversial in this context. Or indeed any of the other words used, with the exception of 'exists' which was the point of the discussion.

If you disagree with my view on 'exists', by all means explain why, but it sounds like you're using the 'give up now, for language is futile' exit clause.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I'll try another tack -
In a discussion about 'exist' and especially where the main focus is "does X exist", any claims based on an assumption that existance has been granted to certain categories ( leaving aside whether they are useful categories) seems circular at best.

If 'exist' adds nothing then your position is indistinguishable from the "everything I can conceive of - exists", which I have objected to several times earlier in the thread. I'll recap in case you don't want to go back, but it may be too short here -

"Exist" is such a neat little word it would be nice to have a use for it. If it is a ubiquitous property and there is nothing to which the term non-exist applies, I'm with you .. who needs it.

I don't use it that way myself, I'm probably in some offshoot of the materialist camp, and I need some interaction ( shorthand) and external nature to categorize it into the 'it exists' column.

Given that, your statement using ""I, think, anything, description,object, and exist" would obviously mean something very different to me than to you. You seem to be claiming that the object exists because objects exist. So, is 'thinking' an object or doesn't thinking exist or does it exist but it's not an object or...

how come this seems so easy to you :- ?

luckyme

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
If you disagree with my view on 'exists', by all means explain why, but it sounds like you're using the 'give up now, for language is futile' exit clause.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Exist" is used a lot ( or implications of it) and I know people use it differently but assume everybody uses it the same. This thread was an attempt to smoke em' out.

"disagree" isn't the issue. "how do you use it and why" was the main thrust. If everyone used it your way, I'd switch and find a new term for how I use it. Unfortunately, some use it my way,... sigh.

luckyme

[pilliwinks]

[ QUOTE ]
If 'exist' adds nothing then your position is indistinguishable from the "everything I can conceive of - exists"

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree. From what I was saying, everything I can conceive of - I can conceive of. No more. If you wish to add 'and it exists', you are welcome to do so, though I will roll my eyes at you.

If you refer to the square circle and say it does not exist, I will probably humor you, but if pressed I will point out that there is a language referent for 'square circle' under the heading of 'logical contradictions', and that although I would not expect to see such an object, it certainly has a presence in 'concept space'.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If 'exist' adds nothing then your position is indistinguishable from the "everything I can conceive of - exists"

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree. From what I was saying, everything I can conceive of - I can conceive of. No more. If you wish to add 'and it exists', you are welcome to do so, though I will roll my eyes at you.

If you refer to the square circle and say it does not exist, I will probably humor you, but if pressed I will point out that there is a language referent for 'square circle' under the heading of 'logical contradictions', and that although I would not expect to see such an object, it certainly has a presence in 'concept space'.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think it does - it is indistinguishable from something which is both equidistant from us and closer to you, it is indistinguishable from something which is a constant temperature over time and also fluctuating continuously, it is indistinguishable from a statement of formal mathematics which is both true and false under a certain set of consistent axioms....

None of these things exist - how can you distinguish between them? Only by the words you use to label them - in which case "la plume" and "the pen" are two different objects (or "the pen on my desk" and "the pen I am looking at").

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
If you refer to the square circle and say it does not exist, I will probably humor you, but if pressed I will point out that there is a language referent for 'square circle' under the heading of 'logical contradictions', and that although I would not expect to see such an object, it certainly has a presence in 'concept space'.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don’t necessarily agree with the following: word constructs that cannot correspond to physical realities exist in a different sort of concept space than word constructs that can.

[pilliwinks]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you refer to the square circle and say it does not exist, I will probably humor you, but if pressed I will point out that there is a language referent for 'square circle' under the heading of 'logical contradictions', and that although I would not expect to see such an object, it certainly has a presence in 'concept space'.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think it does - it is indistinguishable from something which is both equidistant from us and closer to you, it is indistinguishable from something which is a constant temperature over time and also fluctuating continuously, it is indistinguishable from a statement of formal mathematics which is both true and false under a certain set of consistent axioms....

None of these things exist - how can you distinguish between them? Only by the words you use to label them - in which case "la plume" and "the pen" are two different objects (or "the pen on my desk" and "the pen I am looking at").

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see why these things are indistinguishable. Certainly they all fall under the heading of logical contradictions, but I don't see why that set should only include one member. The fact that you cannot see numbers does not make them indistinguishable, nor any other kind of logical relation (which are also not detectable experimentally). The square circle has a logical status that is distinct from the square pentagon. Yes we use words to denote the difference, but that is true of any distinction. Some such differences may be physically demonstrable as well, but many are not. Some are mathematically demonstrable, but others not.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you refer to the square circle and say it does not exist, I will probably humor you, but if pressed I will point out that there is a language referent for 'square circle' under the heading of 'logical contradictions', and that although I would not expect to see such an object, it certainly has a presence in 'concept space'.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think it does - it is indistinguishable from something which is both equidistant from us and closer to you, it is indistinguishable from something which is a constant temperature over time and also fluctuating continuously, it is indistinguishable from a statement of formal mathematics which is both true and false under a certain set of consistent axioms....

None of these things exist - how can you distinguish between them? Only by the words you use to label them - in which case "la plume" and "the pen" are two different objects (or "the pen on my desk" and "the pen I am looking at").

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see why these things are indistinguishable. Certainly they all fall under the heading of logical contradictions, but I don't see why that set should only include one member. The fact that you cannot see numbers does not make them indistinguishable, nor any other kind of logical relation (which are also not detectable experimentally). The square circle has a logical status that is distinct from the square pentagon. Yes we use words to denote the difference, but that is true of any distinction. Some such differences may be physically demonstrable as well, but many are not. Some are mathematically demonstrable, but others not.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont get it. I distinguish between two objects by pointing to a characteristic that one of them has and the other doesnt.

What characteristic does a square circle have that a prime number with 5 factors doesnt?

Alternatively, how do you distinguish between them?

(Incidentally, I dont think the set has only one member, I think it has none)

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I don’t necessarily agree with the following: word constructs that cannot correspond to physical realities exist in a different sort of concept space than word constructs that can.

[/ QUOTE ]
I find it very hard to understand what you are saying here. Are you making any claim?

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don’t necessarily agree with the following: word constructs that cannot correspond to physical realities exist in a different sort of concept space than word constructs that can.

[/ QUOTE ]
I find it very hard to understand what you are saying here. Are you making any claim?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really, just suggesting a notion.

Perhaps the concept spaces differ in their applicability, like the computable and uncomputable numbers.

[pilliwinks]

You might distinguish between two physical objects by pointing. You normally distinguish between two conceptual objects by their predicates. The square circle has predicates including 'logical contradiction' but also 'circular'.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
You might distinguish between two physical objects by pointing. You normally distinguish between two conceptual objects by their predicates. The square circle has predicates including 'logical contradiction' but also 'circular'.

[/ QUOTE ]
but it doesn't. If its had the predicate 'circular' then its not a square circle.

chez

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
The brick is red, like the apple.
The rock is hard, like the glass.
The sausage exists, like the orbit.

hmmm...it doesn't work for 'exist', whatever existential property of sausages 'exist' carries, it doesn't transfer to things like orbits, running or unicorns.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say if something "exists", it merely means it is observed in some manner (some properties can be defined, etc.). So there is no problem saying the sausage exists, as does the orbit. Both can be observed and defined in some manner. This thread is all about making the simple more complex than necessary.

[luckyme]

actually in was the almost like a poll post. People use the term in different ways and people give different strengths to how they use it in different cases.

[ QUOTE ]
it is observed in some manner (some properties can be defined, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

you have captured it .. "some manner" and "some properties" pretty well define it alright ;-)

The path a drunk take down a street is just as observable as an orbit. If you arrive after the drunk is leaning against the lamppost, good luck on observing the path. I could tell you any route was taken and you'd have no reason to know different.

so, I've added you to the "everything I can conceive - exists" group. Along the lines of classical metaphysical. others fit more into materialism or positivism ( like Hawkings) approachs.

( I'm not selling anything, just grouping and noting views)

thanks for the comments, luckyme

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
The path a drunk take down a street is just as observable as an orbit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. So what's the problem? Are you suggesting that we can't define the path or the orbit? If you are, you are just playing a word game on what the meaning of 'is' is.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The path a drunk take down a street is just as observable as an orbit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. So what's the problem? Are you suggesting that we can't define the path or the orbit? If you are, you are just playing a word game on what the meaning of 'is' is.

[/ QUOTE ]

(You missed the part where I was implying that you'd be aware of any coins he dropped along the way but not be able to make any claims about his path)
For some, the path and the orbit belong in an imaginary category the same as unicorn. The drunk seems to have a different level of 'being' than 'only in my head'. Materialists don't think the situations are equivalent and it seems strange to use the same term to describe their 'being'. Positivists have little use for the term 'exist' but on a different level.

I mentioned I'm not selling, I'm also not buying... just exchanging and expanding my understanding.

thanks for expanding on your views, luckyme

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
The path a drunk take down a street is just as observable as an orbit. If you arrive after the drunk is leaning against the lamppost, good luck on observing the path. I could tell you any route was taken and you'd have no reason to know different.

[/ QUOTE ]

An orbit is a unique and measurable path of constant energy given initial conditions. Even if no object ever follows the path, it is there anyway. Also, given certain ending conditions (the drunk leaning against the lamppost in the analogy), it is possible to extrapolate a unique and measurable path backwards. Whether or not any object actually followed the path, the correspondence is there anyway.

In other words, an orbit is a confirmable objective reality.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
You might distinguish between two physical objects by pointing. You normally distinguish between two conceptual objects by their predicates. The square circle has predicates including 'logical contradiction' but also 'circular'.

[/ QUOTE ]
I would claim it doesnt have the property of being circular. If it did all points would be equidistant from a central point and they arent since it is claimed to have four sides of equal length meeting at right angles....

I would still maintain you are attempting to reference something that doesnt exist - it doesnt have any properties. To repeat, how can you distinguish between a square circle and a prime with 5 factors? If you claim the square-circle has "circular" as a property how do you know the prime with 5 factors doesnt also?

[pilliwinks]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The square circle has predicates including 'logical contradiction' but also 'circular'.

[/ QUOTE ]
I would claim it doesnt have the property of being circular. If it did all points would be equidistant from a central point and they arent since it is claimed to have four sides of equal length meeting at right angles....

[/ QUOTE ]

It certainly does have the predicate of 'circular', it also has the predicate of 'square'. We agree that these are inconsistent predicates, which is a property of all the concepts that fall into the 'logical contradiction' set. The fact that the inconsistency is not, say, of color, like the green purple tracksuit, is a point of difference between these two members of the set.

I realise that you are saying 'you can't detect either of those differences, because physical space has logical constraints, and if you can't detect them they aren't there', but my outlook is that conceptual space does not have logical constraints on its members (as should be evident from many of the arguments on this forum!).

When you undertake a mathematical proof, in some cases you may find that you end up with a demonstration that the theorem is false. Surely you don't claim that all false theorems can be falsified by the same method. If not, why not? Because they are different, no?

I am no mathematician, but I understand that there have been several false theorems that have been extremely productive in pushing the boundaries back. I don't think it is streching the word particularly to say that these false theorems 'exist' in concept space, though I repeat that I do not find 'exist' a useful predicate.

I feel uncomfortable lumped into the group who say everything exists. I would rather be in the group who use 'is' instead of 'exists' at every opportunity. As in 'the green purple unicorn IS a figment of your imagination'. 'Orbitals ARE lumpy, according to our research'. etc.

[bunny]

And how do you distinguish between a square circle and a prime with 5 factors?

Edit: I do appreciate the points you have been making - I am genuinely curious though in how you can answer the above question.

[pilliwinks]

I don't really see the problem. A prime with 5 factors has a few predicates, including 'a number', 'two factors' and 'five factors'. It does not necessarily have the predicates 'circular' or 'square'. If it did, it would be a square circular prime with five factors.

[bunny]

But how do you determine it doesnt have those predicates? Possibly a prime with 5 factors is circular - how would I know? The fact that I didnt list the predicates of an object doesnt mean it doesnt have them (Consider the object "A circle of radius r" it also has the property that it has a circumference of 2*pi*r - it is the same an "A set of points equidistant from a certain point called the centre enclosing an area of pi*r*r"). I am comparing these two objects and calling them the same or different based on their inherent properties, not based on what predicates I choose to label them with.

So how do you determine that a prime with 5 factors doesnt have the property of being circular?

[pilliwinks]

If you choose to consider an object with the properties 'a circle radius r', that has certain logical correlates based on our understanding of geometry, including a circumference of 2*pi*r. It does not have the logical correlate 'square'. If you wish to consider the object 'a square circle radius r', then you have defined the object under consideration as having the predicate square. It is clearly not the same object as the previous 'circle radius r'. That is not because I 'choose to label them differently', but because they are logically distinct - for starters one is in the set of logical contradictions and the other is not.

This is like the difference between the circle radius r that happens to be green and the one that is blue. They may just be conceptual circles, but they are clearly distinct, whether or not you have a spectrometer handy.

I agree that you can have a prime with 5 factors that is circular, and it is a subset of all primes with 5 factors.

If you consider a logical contradiction object, your logical deductions from the properties you are given will give you a subset of all such objects (the set with logically derived but incompatible properties). The rest of the set is full of objects with wacky properties that cannot be deduced or inferred from what is given.

Note that this also holds for physical objects, which have logical properties that we deduce or infer, but may have all sorts of other predicates that we cannot currently detect. Like radium in 1600.

You may claim that these are different because radioactivity is detectable in theory, whereas irrational predicates are not, but I would say that simply reflects the difference between conceptual and physical objects. (And for all we know there may even be physical properties that we are unable to detect in theory also, but that's another can of worms).

[atrifix]

[ QUOTE ]
(Incidentally, I dont think the set has only one member, I think it has none)

[/ QUOTE ]
This is interesting, because I would argue that it has infinitely many, and perhaps even uncountably infinitely many. If you agree that there is such a thing as the set of all wffs, and you agree that P & ~P is a wff, then you must agree that there is a nonempty set of logical contradictions, no? Or do you operate with different definitions of wffs, etc.?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(Incidentally, I dont think the set has only one member, I think it has none)

[/ QUOTE ]
This is interesting, because I would argue that it has infinitely many, and perhaps even uncountably infinitely many. If you agree that there is such a thing as the set of all wffs, and you agree that P & ~P is a wff, then you must agree that there is a nonempty set of logical contradictions, no? Or do you operate with different definitions of wffs, etc.?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think the wff P&~P exists but I think no statement P which satisfies it exists. This example seems to strengthen my case since P&~P is logically consistent to anything at all within first order logic.

I dont have a problem distinguishing the sentences "a square circle" and "a prime with 5 factors" - they clearly exist as things we can say. I just think they are referring to a non-existant object.

[bunny]

Thanks for this discussion - I am still of the opinion that objects exist with certain properties and the way we determine what properties they have is through reference to them (in a rather mysterious way) rather than through which predicates we choose to describe them.

I am struggling to not repeat myself though - it has been many years since I argued philosophy in any non-superficial way. Thanks again for your thoughts.

[pilliwinks]

[ QUOTE ]
I am still of the opinion that objects exist with certain properties and the way we determine what properties they have is through reference to them (in a rather mysterious way) rather than through which predicates we choose to describe them.

[/ QUOTE ]

You think perhaps that objects that exist have an intrinsic essence that we seek to describe?

Or perhaps that they resemble to a greater or lesser degree perfect forms of that object (which exist but are not physical)?

These are well known opinions and none the worse for that. I like the idea of objects having a certain nature in themselves that we seek to accurately describe by our logical and experimental efforts. And that the results of these endevours are dictated absolutely by the underlying nature of the object rather than our opinions of it. And as a consequence, what we believe about them does not affect them. I think this is your definition of things that 'exist', no?

This is fine and dandy for physical objects, and I wholeheartedly embrace that philosophy for discriminating bogus from accurate descriptions of our world.

The problems arise when you deal with conceptual objects. You can of course say: only words describing contradictions exist, the objects themselves do not have any properties, and they certainly don't exist. But then what do you say about the logical ramifications of the non-existant object? Presumably they have no properties either, so it would be as foolish to talk about the radius of your square circle as its aura. But this leads me back where I was before: people have made good use of the logical ramifications of theorems that are false, and different methods are used to demonstrate that the theorems are false. If concepts that are logically inconsistent have no properties, I can't see how this could occur.

I would rather be able to deal logically with irrational concepts much as we do with irrational numbers (yes I'm mixing a metaphor). The point is that there are uses for distinctions between what you call non-existant things, and it is handy to apply logic to them, though you have to cope with the illogical fallout. If you categorise all such objects as simply words, with no underlying reality, that's OK, but you may end up having to manipulate the words as if they were real, which I find unsatisfactory. A bit like praying to a God you don't believe in, no? /images/graemlins/ooo.gif

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
But this leads me back where I was before: people have made good use of the logical ramifications of theorems that are false, and different methods are used to demonstrate that the theorems are false. If concepts that are logically inconsistent have no properties, I can't see how this could occur.


[/ QUOTE ]
I didnt address this at the time but I dont know of any examples of false theorems leading to meaningful results. In fact, I think the whole thing would be discarded if a mathematical field was shown to have inconsistent axioms. (I believe this occurred in some obscure field of geometry late in the 19th century - the details escape me, I'm afraid).

Do you have an example of what you mean here?

[pilliwinks]

Well, let's try the four colors theorem. We now have pretty good evidence that it is true, but thirty years ago it could have been false or at least unprovable.

I doubt you would argue that the efforts to prove this theorem, and the novel approaches to math that it spawned, would have been binned had the theorem turned out to be false. I am not suggesting that you would keep a huge logical structure that was based on a fallacy, but I am saying that different fallacies have different logical ramifications, some of which are interesting.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, let's try the four colors theorem. We now have pretty good evidence that it is true, but thirty years ago it could have been false or at least unprovable.

I doubt you would argue that the efforts to prove this theorem, and the novel approaches to math that it spawned, would have been binned had the theorem turned out to be false. I am not suggesting that you would keep a huge logical structure that was based on a fallacy, but I am saying that different fallacies have different logical ramifications, some of which are interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]
I regard this as proved btw - although that is for another thread...

If people had attempted to prove a false statement using a novel new method of proof (which would obviously fail) and this new method continued to be used that would be a good consequence of trying to prove the statement. I dont think it is a logical consequence of the statement though.

I do think any results derived as a consequence of the statement being regarded as a theorem would be binned.

[pilliwinks]

I think it's an unfortunate use of words to say the new method of proof would 'fail'. It would successfully demonstrate the falsity of the theorem, hopefully with great rigor. And this particular rigorous disproof is not the same as every other disproof, suggesting surely that there is something different between the theorems.

I suspect that imaginary numbers were once scoffed at by people who felt that they did not exist. The fact that they are extremely useful has presumably altered that position for most modern mathematicians (if not students).

I am not suggesting that imaginary numbers are a logical contradiction, just that their part of concept space was once included in 'non-existant' and now is presumably not. What changed?

[chezlaw]

The Riemann hypothesis could be false. They could find a counter-example and that would be the end of it. A huge amount of 'good' maths has come from considering Riemann and that maths would still be good but none of it would follow from a contradiction.

Its's the contradiction that is the problem with a square circle. It doesn't just have the predicates circular and square it has every predicate and its negations. We can prove that its prime and red and not red and composite and, of course, not circular and not square. (if existence was a predicate we could prove that if it exists then it doesn't /images/graemlins/smile.gif)

This is true for every object that has contradictory predicates (if we accept their existence) so we just end up with one object that is the same as any object with inconsistent predicates.

Whether this thing exists or not seems just a matter of convention. Its a bit like arguing whether or not 1 is a prime number.

I'm happy with it existing, now you've made me think about it. Contradictions exist and this is it.

chez

[pilliwinks]

Now that you mention it, I recall reading a simple proof that a contradiction implies all predicates. Can you outline it and save me the trouble of digging it up?

It seems superficially implausible, so it must be true /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's an unfortunate use of words to say the new method of proof would 'fail'. It would successfully demonstrate the falsity of the theorem, hopefully with great rigor. And this particular rigorous disproof is not the same as every other disproof, suggesting surely that there is something different between the theorems.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont understand this point - I thought we were discussing an unsuccessful proof, not a successful disproof. In my view an unsuccessful proof my yield useful procedures as a consequence but these are not a logical consequence of the putative theorem. In the case of a successful disproof - I guess any new methods could be regarded as a consequence - but still not a logical consequence of the false "theorem"...

[ QUOTE ]
I suspect that imaginary numbers were once scoffed at by people who felt that they did not exist. The fact that they are extremely useful has presumably altered that position for most modern mathematicians (if not students).

I am not suggesting that imaginary numbers are a logical contradiction, just that their part of concept space was once included in 'non-existant' and now is presumably not. What changed?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think our understanding did - we were wrong to previously claim they may exist. (In the same way, I may be wrong to claim a square-circle doesnt exist, but I have extremely good grounds to believe it - the best grounds possible, imo.) I am a platonist and think questions like this are true or false regardless of the current state of knowledge - pythagoras' theorem was always true - his claim that all numbers were rational was always false.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Now that you mention it, I recall reading a simple proof that a contradiction implies all predicates. Can you outline it and save me the trouble of digging it up?

It seems superficially implausible, so it must be true /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
P1: A&~A is true
therefore ~A is true
also, therefore A is true
therefore A or(anything you want) is true
Now since A or (anything you want) is true
and ~A is true
(anything you want) is true (by modus pollens)

[pilliwinks]

But why does A and ~A imply that B and ~B are true?

Clearly if you accept that any statement and its converse are true then logic demands that asserting the statement implies its converse, but it does not obviously demand that it implies any other statement. Unless the statement is the rather unusual one that 'everything is true'.

[bunny]

The proof I outlined above establishes anything you want. Insert B where I put (anything you want) and you will see that A & ~A implies B. Similarly it implies ~B and if B is true and ~B is true then B & ~B is true.

[pilliwinks]

Ah. Yes now I see. I thought you meant A could be anything you want. Handy, those brackets, when you notice them.

You are asserting (A or B), then noting ~A and concluding B, right?

I think the problem comes in asserting (A or B). By which I think you mean (if it is not in A, then it is in B). I'm just not sure how you get logically from (A is true) to (if A is not true it must be B).

I suspect that A implies (A or B) only if ~A is not true, which in this case it is.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Ah. Yes now I see. I thought you meant A could be anything you want. Handy, those brackets, when you notice them.

You are asserting (A or B), then noting ~A and concluding B, right?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes this is the logical rule modus pollens.

[ QUOTE ]
I think the problem comes in asserting (A or B). By which I think you mean (if it is not in A, then it is in B).

[/ QUOTE ]
No it is not couched within set theory - (A or B) means A is true, B is true or both are true.
[ QUOTE ]
I'm just not sure how you get logically from (A is true) to (if A is not true it must be B).

I suspect that A implies (A or B) only if ~A is not true, which in this case it is.

[/ QUOTE ]
You get there from the rules of first order logic. A implies (A or B) since, if either A or B is true (or if both are) then (A or B) is defined to be true.

[pilliwinks]

I hear you that A implies (A or B), but I think there's a problem.

Since your method gets ~B from A, we then agree that both ~A and ~B are true and I would expect that ~A and ~B implies ~(A or B).

That is, we find that A and ~A also implies that (A or B) is not true.

Consequently, the result of believing that A and ~A implies B, is that A and ~A does not imply B...

[bunny]

And this is the point. If you allow any contradiction, then all contradictions are true (all this within first order logic). This is why mathematical axioms have to be consistent - if they allow a single contradiction they allow all of them.

It is not a consequence of believing that A&~A implies B (this consequence is a provable fact from the axioms and the premise). It is a consequence of believing that (A&~A) is true for some A within first order logic.

You can amend the logical rules, or axioms if you like (and here move into other logics where contradictions do not render the system trivial) but if you are to remain within classical logic - you must deny that A&~A is true for all A if you are to avoid the problem.

[pilliwinks]

Wait a minute. The logical conclusion from A and ~A is both B and ~B AND that you cannot logically derive B or ~B.

On the basis of this, how do you claim that a contradiction implies all predicates? Surely the logic (of this sort anyway) is saying that you cannot safely derive anything from a contradiction (because you can always prove that your derivation is false given those premises).

That is the conclusion I'd be happy with, anyway /images/graemlins/grin.gif

On that basis I would maintain, as before, that a contradiction does not imply anything other than itself - the square circle may be grue, but there is no logical reason to claim that it must be.

[bunny]

I dont know how to say it any differently. I proved that a contradiction implies anything you like (within first order logic) a few posts back.

If the rules of logic hold - any contradiction which is true implies everything else. If the set is consistent then if it contains a contradiction it is trivially complete (everything is true).

[bunny]

Perhaps this is useful?

P1: This object is a square
P2: This object is not a square
Therfore P3: This object is a square or this object is grue (Since A -> A OR B)
Therfore P4: This object is grue (Since [(A OR B) and (NOT A)] -> B

Each of these justifications is a rule of first order logic (cant remember the name of the first, the second is modus pollens). Rules are allowed if they preserve truth values which these both do. Again, the claim is only true if couched within first order logic (which is "normal" logic).

[pilliwinks]

I know that you proved that a contradiction implies whatever you like. But don't you agree that the proof is flawed?

Because P1 and P2 imply P3b the object is not (square or grue). At which point you are unable to assert P4.

I don't know what you mean by the set being consistent, but I agree that your proof holds for the unusual statement 'everything is true'.

I can't see why everyone likes the outcome 'A and ~A imply B' for all A and B, but they don't mention the outcome 'A and ~A do not consistently imply anything'.

[bunny]

Which step of the proof is flawed? The laws of logic are defined rigorously and have been applied at every step. So I would claim the proof isnt flawed at all. (Look at the P1. P2. P3. P4 version I think it is clearest here)

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't see why everyone likes the outcome 'A and ~A imply B' for all A and B

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont know if I'm speaking for everyone but the reason this statement is true (within first order logic) is because of the way all those terms are defined which is via truth tables. Liking the outcome is irrelevant really - it is a necessary consequence of the laws of logic so I accept it as true (it's also why I am so passionate about not believing mutually contradictory statements).

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Because P1 and P2 imply P3b the object is not (square or grue). At which point you are unable to assert P4.


[/ QUOTE ]
You seem to be saying it is not possible for "the object is not (square or grue)" to be true given that "the object is square or grue" is true.

Yet the starting point is that we are allowing a contradiction - namely A (whatever that is) and not A.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know what you mean by the set being consistent

[/ QUOTE ]
It was a meaningless and inappropriate distraction - dont know what I was only half thinking.

[psy]

Luckyme,

I think understand your point of view. If I'm getting it then you see the thing in itself and any thought beyond that thing is irrelevant. For example; the sausage tastes good, the desk your computer sits on has sharp corners, the chair you sit on has soft armrests, your keyboard is black and your mouse goes 'click' when you click it. An object exists in itself and can be defined because it has properties which are unique to that object that can be sensed.

When you click your mouse you hear the click (a property of the mouse) but thinking about how the sound traveled from the mouse to your ear and how that is interperted by your brain as a click is not important. Whilst you don't deny the click exists (do you? I would argue that the click does exist because I heard it, and I can recreate it. Why shouldn't hearing something give it the same claim of "existance" as seeing or touching something?), you don't think that how the click exists is meaningful.

The point here is that the word "exists" encompases far too much. Whilst there is an undercurrent of truth here utimately the argument is futile. To attribute particular meaning to the word "exist" is using logic to describe something that ultimately describes something else. It is a matter of semantics and involves too much thinking. Leave that to the linguists...

It's an argument you can't win, but that doesn't mean you're not right. To prove it, live it. Simply see everything in itself, as itself. Don't think about it or the meaning behind it. Sense it, live it, know it. It's probably the way to true enlightenment. Good luck!

[pilliwinks]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because P1 and P2 imply P3b the object is not (square or grue). At which point you are unable to assert P4.


[/ QUOTE ]
You seem to be saying it is not possible for "the object is not (square or grue)" to be true given that "the object is square or grue" is true.

Yet the starting point is that we are allowing a contradiction - namely A (whatever that is) and not A.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can see I never studied logic /images/graemlins/frown.gif Still, Mr Wikipedia has agreed to teach me, so we'll see how we go.

I do indeed wish to claim that (A implies ~X) leads inevitably to (A does not imply X). My tutor tells me that this is called obversion, and is valid for all categorical propositions. Am I mistaken?

If that is the case, then we substitute (A or B) for X and we arrive at the logical conclusion that A does not imply (A or B), at which point your Step 3 falls over. If the best that logic can do is make a proof, while also showing that the proof is not valid, then I would say the results are uncertain at best.

It is not clear to me why asserting one contradiction means we should ignore whether or not the logical consequents of that are consistent. Surely if a contradiction means that logic cannot demonstrate anything without also showing that the proof is false (by its own rules), then the interpretation should be that we cannot logically conclude anything from a contradiction, because the derivations are unsafe.

Of course I have not shown that all proofs are dodgy using contradictory premises, but at least in this case I think there is reason to dispute the claim that the square circle must logically be grue. And to further contend that logic does not tell us which other predicates apply to contradictory objects, including the doubtful predicate of existance.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
You can see I never studied logic /images/graemlins/frown.gif Still, Mr Wikipedia has agreed to teach me, so we'll see how we go.

I do indeed wish to claim that (A implies ~X) leads inevitably to (A does not imply X). My tutor tells me that this is called obversion, and is valid for all categorical propositions. Am I mistaken?

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you have a link? Because I dont think this is true unless we are excluding contradictions (which we are not here by our first premise - ie an object exists which is a square and whish isnt). I would say obversion is valid because contradictions cant exist, so my proof would go:

Begin with the fact A -> ~X
Now suppose that A -> X
This would mean that if A is true then X is also true [from our supposistion]
But we know that if A is true then ~X is true [from our given fact]
So this means that X & ~X is true
Therefore our supposition must be false (ie it is true that A does not imply X) [proof by contradiction] - ie it must be false because we are excluding the existence of contradictions

Do you see this? The reason we can conclude A does not imply X from A implies X is that we are not allowing contradictions to exist. If contradictions do exist then we cannot conclude that our supposition must be false in the final step - we have just demonstrated another contradiction.

If you wish to rely on obversion in a system in which contradictions are allowed - try and demonstrate, step by step, that A implies ~X must mean that A does not imply X. I am confident you wont be able to.

[ QUOTE ]
It is not clear to me why asserting one contradiction means we should ignore whether or not the logical consequents of that are consistent. Surely if a contradiction means that logic cannot demonstrate anything without also showing that the proof is false (by its own rules), then the interpretation should be that we cannot logically conclude anything from a contradiction, because the derivations are unsafe.

[/ QUOTE ]
A minor technical point but it is best to refer to proofs as "valid" or "invalid" rather than true or false (statements are true or false). A valid argument is one for which the conclusion is always true if the premises are true, an invalid one is....you guessed it not valid. (Which means there is a way of making the conclusion false, with all the premises true)

I hope this makes some sense - if you are looking around for an understanding of logic I'd look at topics like : truth tables and valid vs invalid arguments (possibly axiomatic systems as well - probably chapter 1 and/or 2, plus the inside cover of any introductory logic textbook, it isnt hard to teach yourself elementary logic - although it does get conceptually difficult as you move to higher logics.

[pilliwinks]

Well, I confess I have limited enthusiasm for testing whether logical relations are valid with contradictory premises. The link, for what it's worth is here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obversion)