This proposition is not a contradiction, although it seems somewhat illogical.
The simplified version should be “Can’t find it, do you still have it?”
If this thing belongs to matter, but is completely isolated, and is not felt by the subjective consciousness of living things in any way or in any form, can it be confirmed that this thing exists or does not exist?

This is a very interesting philosophical question. I will not state the various ideas in the history of philosophy (in fact, I can’t remember it), but just talk about an idea that I think is more interesting. When we say existence, we often understand it as an abstraction of concrete beings: the table exists, the chair exists, you exist, and I exist. But being is not a concrete being. This is clear and straightforward, and it is easy for everyone to understand. Then, existence is different from being. If the two concepts are an abstract relationship, then what kind of abstract relationship is this? For example, in the world, there are people who are close to a circle, and there is an abstract concept of a circle. What is the relationship between the two? In my opinion, there is no other relationship between the two, but a connection of imagination. Abstract existence is nothing but a predicate that helps to outline a concrete being, a name, not something that exists in the world independent of beings. Therefore, the world is not separated from the existence of beings. The use of being separated from being is a misuse. So, if a thing exists, then there is such a thing. You say that a thing exists, but it does not produce a connection between time and space and causality. How can you prove that it exists? Of course, in philosophical discussions, we can imagine an existence without a causal connection between time and space. If it is possible for the existence without the connection of time and space, then this existence is possible. If this is inevitable, and it must be derived from conceptual analysis, then it must exist, although this is impossible in my opinion. If this is impossible, then such an existence is impossible. According to the title, suppose that if the being without the causal connection of time and space is real, then such a being is real. However, the premise is probably wrong.


By zhiwo

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Notify of
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
6 months ago

If we limit our discussion to the formal logic system, there is only one answer. what is it then? This proposition violates the law of contradiction, and A cannot be non-A. So this questioning method itself is wrong. Existence means existence, because it is defined in this way that it cannot exist and not exist, so this question should not be asked or answered. If we do not limit the discussion within the formal logic system, but discuss it under dialectics, then there is only one answer. what is it then? Everything is a contradictory unity of opposites, things develop in motion, and the law of development is negative and negative, so any existence does not exist at the same time. When you ask your question, this existence has already developed towards non-existence, and at best we can say that he once existed. So what if you add a time attribute? At the moment I asked this question, could it be possible not to exist? So how long is the moment we are talking about? One millisecond, one microsecond, one femtosecond, or one unit of Planck time? No matter what, he is always a process, right? Since it is a process, it is inevitable to be in motion, as long as the motion is bound to follow the negation principle of negation. Even if there is only one unit of Planck time, the existence at the beginning of the process has changed at the end of the process, and it must not be that existence anymore. If we abstract a slice at the conceptual level and turn a period of time into a point in time, is the answer different? Yes, if that is the case, we are back to the formal logic system, and the answer we have just said. Formal logic is a highly abstract model that ignores the time dimension. It is absolutely self-consistent, but it is all nonsense. Dialectics is a complex model that adds a time dimension. It does not have to follow the three laws of formal logic and is not precise enough, but it can better describe the world and guide practice.

6 months ago

“If something clearly exists” is contradictory with “but does not affect anything”. Because when you say “a thing clearly exists”, it already affects you. So: if a thing clearly exists, but does not affect anything, then the conclusion is: this is not a “thing”. A thing “never be discovered”, then it means that this thing only exists on the other side of thinking. In formal logic, a thing can be proved to exist, but “never be discovered” is suspicious.

6 months ago

First, you have said that there is a clear existence, then it is the second of existence. What you call not to be discovered, then it means that it does not exist for people. The difference between objective phenomena and subjective cognition is nothing more. This is like a man who is a scumbag, and it doesn’t conflict with a woman that he is a scumbag. On the side of the woman, the man is not a scum. If he does not stand on the side of the woman, the man is a scum. The difference in access to information determines the difference in cognition. So this thing exists, but for the human world, it does not exist.

6 months ago

On this issue, the understanding of the Eastern and Western philosophers is almost the same. Some people believe that ghosts and gods exist, but no one has ever seen them. In this regard, Confucius said: “Respect ghosts and gods and stay away.” I believe in its existence for the time being and respect the beliefs of people like you who believe in ghosts and gods, but I am not interested in ghosts and gods myself. Confucius also said, “I don’t know how to live, how can I know death?” I don’t even understand the living people. How can I have spare time to study after death? William of Occam, an English logician in the 14th century, proposed Occam’s Razor Law, advocating “If it’s not necessary, don’t increase the substance.” At that time, the scholastic philosophy and theology were full of metaphysical views on “universal” and “essence” The quarrel of the problem, many of these things are the existence of “existing but not being perceived” in the problem. William of Occam believes that those empty existences can neither be verified nor falsified, and there is no point in discussing them. People should only discuss what does exist. It was this “razor” that changed the ethos of talk in the Western intellectual circles at that time and triggered the European Renaissance, Reformation, and Scientific Revolution. So you see, it doesn’t matter whether an existence that cannot be perceived by humans is considered to exist. Humans’ limited computing power does not need to be wasted on this problem. It is more cost-effective to study some more realistic problems.

6 months ago

Existence should have limits. Before you define the limits, there is no way to discuss whether there is or does not exist. For example, everyone knows that there is a concept in mathematics called a set, which refers to one or more certain elements, which constitute the whole. If we have three sets ABC, these three sets form a set D. Element a is an element in set A. Then for set A or set D, a exists. For sets B and C, a does not exist. Is the relationship between a and B and C a perfect match, a relationship that cannot be discovered and has no influence? But a does exist, but it exists outside of B and C. So, in my opinion, the answer to this question should be non-existent. It doesn’t affect anything, it should be the universe we live in. In our universe, it is impossible to discover, nor have any influence on, things in the universe in which we live, that is, the universe that does not exist in ours. If one day we reach a higher universe and can observe it, then it exists.

6 months ago

All existence is formed on the basis of association with the subject! If existence occurs without being attached to the subject, then there will only be one result, which is the non-subjectivity of the subject! Simply put, if you think that something you cannot understand exists, it will only lead to a result, that is, there is an existence beyond you that makes you think that this thing exists! To put it bluntly: someone is lying to you, and you are very useful!

6 months ago

We have discovered four kinds of forces, so the set of substances that can produce or be affected by these four forces is the limit of our cognition. If some things do not have any effect with any substance in this set, these things are in line with what the subject says. Their existence cannot be confirmed or falsified unless we discover more power. There is always a limit to our cognition, and whether there is anything beyond the limit, it is impossible to prove that the discussion is meaningless.

6 months ago

It depends on whether this standard of existence depends on subjective existence or objective existence. If the existence is subjectively felt, the thing that cannot be seen belongs to Schrodinger’s existence, because the subject does not feel it and does not exist; if the objective existence belongs to existence, then the existence of the thing is existence, and whether it is felt or not It does not matter whether it has an impact or is affected. This is actually a Schrodinger question. For example, a person is naturally allergic to peanuts, but he will not know that this thing exists until he eats peanuts for the first time. If he does not eat peanuts all his life, this is an allergy that does not exist subjectively but exists objectively.

6 months ago

Isn’t this question very interesting! First of all, I want to help the subject of this question. I think Gao Zan’s answer may have misunderstood the meaning of the subject. A so-called three halves, the solution of the equation, and even the sequence of pi should not be the “clearly existing but never-discovered thing” the subject wanted. To elaborate, the existence theorem of mathematics can be deduced, so propositions such as “the equation has a solution” can also be known. Such a proposition is obviously an existential proposition, which is enough for us to “discover” that the solution clearly exists. Maybe we still can’t know what this solution is, but we know the existence of this solution, which violates the subject’s stipulation. We know when to say that an equation has a solution (we don’t necessarily know what that solution is in the landscape), and we also know the difference between an equation with a solution and no solution. The same is true for the energy example. Although no one can directly observe energy, we know under what circumstances we can say that the energies of the two systems are different, and we also know what that means. And I think, if strictly according to the original poster, an X exists and X does not affect anything, which means that we don’t know under what circumstances we can say “X exists” or say this sentence. What the words mean. The problem here is not just intellectual, but semantic and metaontology. So I think the answer to this question may depend on which semantic theory is right. In more traditional semantics, the meaning of a word is its reference and the meaning of a sentence is its truth condition. From this perspective, as long as a sentence has a truth condition, the sentence is meaningful and has content. From this perspective, the truth condition of “X exists” is the existence of X, so this sentence is meaningful. X refers to something that has no influence on other things, so X is also meaningful. Since this is a meaningful sentence, and there is no entail or any contradiction, then since the subject stipulaye is true, then such X must exist! However, the subject certainly does not want to look at such a boring answer. From the perspective of non-traditional conceptual role semantics, the meaning of a sentence is to use its rules. And this rule includes (1) introduction conditions and (2) elimination conditions. For example, one of the conditions for introducing the phrase “there is water on the table” is that I (the speaker) sees the water on the table, and one of the conditions for its elimination is that if I am thirsty, I have to take it. It drinks. If I saw water before I said this, and drank the water after I said this, then I followed the rules of using language. Any such sentence is regulated by countless similar rules. From this perspective, the sentence “X exists” neither introduces rules (since X is not related to anything, it seems that there is no condition to assert that “X exists”) nor eliminate rules (since X does not have anything to do with It is related, that “X exists” does not affect any of our actions or other beliefs). Therefore, “X exists” is a meaningless sentence from the perspective of conceptual role semantics. If it doesn’t make sense, it’s not truth-apt. In other words, the answer here is: I don’t know what the subject is saying, such an X is meaningless. In Carnap’s words, this question is beyond the framework of the language, so there is no precise meaning, and it is naturally impossible to have an accurate answer. Let’s do this first, I feel that I have given CRS to butcher, but there is no way. If it is not because it is too difficult to jb, I will directly suggest to see dummett and sellars.

6 months ago

Regardless of whether the answer is yes or no, based on the hypothesis of the question, the argument cannot be verified and cannot be falsified. So this is not the scope of empirical science or formal logic discussions. If you want to use narrow terms such as material, objective, and logical to differentiate and argue, it’s all about reasoning. Under the system of contradiction and mutual transformation of dialectics, it can be said that there is also mutual transformation. Maybe there will be explanations in other theoretical systems, I don’t know. At least dialectics can break through cognitive barriers better than empirical science, trying to explore the relationship between cognitive subject and object. Try to talk about the topic. We generally say that existence is “recognizable”, “provable”, and “verifiable”, and the topic says “unrecognizable” but it exists. Then the “existence” we want to talk about here points to The existence is not everyday. It can be said that this existence is merely existence, but it is nothing, because you cannot recognize it. Once you say what it is, it is no longer unrecognizable. It’s really a good question. Did Kant also derive the “things in themselves” from this question? At this point, I really want to believe that there is me in things, and there are things in me, so that the dilemma in the question is incorporated into the self-consistent logical system, but this has entered the arrogance of dialectics. If I don’t believe that there must be something in me and there must be something in me, similar to agnosticism, then I here is just the ego. If all things in the universe are regarded as me, then the small human beings and the short-lived biological world are really not worthy to call themselves the greater self. If it is covered by the self, what is the importance of knowing or not? Talking about significance is nothing more than the fragile self-esteem of human beings. Then, from the perspective of the self that is beyond human and biological perspectives, this self has no boundaries at all, not just the existence, but even the speculative mechanism of a good topic. So what are you struggling with? Looking at this topic at this time, it is just a small group of small humans, holding their small natural language, struggling with the limitations of their expressions. Okay, I believe that this dilemma should not be entangled, so the answer to this question is yes or no, yes or no, and if there is transformation. Gudong, fell into dialectics again.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x