O
Oreoracle
Guest
It seems that, to James, four questions make one answer. Is that like three left turns making a right turn? Or two negatives making a positive? I’m just asking.
- Status
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
I realize that thinking isn’t for everyone, Oreo, but if you are going to try it, take it easy and slow.It seems that, to James, four questions make one answer. Is that like three left turns making a right turn? Or two negatives making a positive? I’m just asking.
He asked how I might use it to determine if anything exists. I gave a short list of things that people commonly argue over. The determining factor that provides that evidence you keep insisting on is whether anything gets affected by the presence of the proposed item.
ALL evidence is in the form of something being effected. Those of you arguing against this proposed definition are arguing against using evidence to establish existence. :dts:
O
Oreoracle
Guest
Again, the problem is that you say we need evidence to declare a thing existent, yet to do so we must assume that the evidence is existent, hence the circularity. No one is arguing that your definition isn’t useful, but it’s still circular. The concept of existence will forever remain axiomatic.
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
You never did look that word up, did you? Or did you just have trouble understanding what it meant?
O
Oreoracle
Guest
Would we or would we not have to assume that the evidence used to determine whether something is existent is itself existent? And would we or would we not have to use the same test to verify the existence of the second entity if we do not assume its existence, and then to the third, and so on? Just answer the questions.
O
Oreoracle
Guest
If you’d like, I can show you the problem in logical terms:
- For each existent thing, there is an entity which proves its existence.
- Each entity that proves the existence of existent things is an existent thing.
C. Therefore, for each entity that proves the existence of existent things, there is an entity which proves its existence.
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
How about you “just answer the question”. What is the definition of “Circular” and exactly where is an example of it in my definition in the OP.
Depending entirely on what you are calling an “entity”, so I would suspect this assertaion to be false. But if you want to accept that statement then you have already repeated my definition, because an “entity” is a “thing”. So you have said;
For each existent thing, there is a thing that proves its existence.
In that statement, you already state for anything to exist, there must be something else to “prove that it exists” and thus exist by virtue of affecting something. Whether it is true that there must be something to prove anything is another matter entirely.
Proving the existence of things has nothing to do with this definition. The definition can be used to disprove or prove due the it placing the requirement of affectance upon any existence. It is an opportunity to establish existence or non-existence by virtue of affectance.
Your argument is pointless.
O
Oreoracle
Guest
In logic, a circular argument is an argument in which one or more premises match or entail the conclusion(s). With definitions, circularity occurs when the definition makes use of the concept being defined.
“Affectance” and “effect” are in your definition of “existence,” but both are only possible (indeed, coherent) if the thing in question is interacting with other existent things. An entity’s ability to affect assumes another entity’s ability to be affected. To rephrase, one’s entity’s existence assumes another’s existence, who assumes another’s existence ad infinitum.
An entity is essentially a collection of traits. The traits could be conceptual or physical so long as they contribute to the thing’s identity.
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
Definitions is all we are concerned with.
And what does that have to do with it being a valid property? The simple fact that you consider “affect” to be a different concern than “exist” makes the definition NON-circular.
In effect, you are saying that we cannot define 2 as 1+1 because 1+1 can only exist if there is already 2 in existence.
Nor can we define a “number” because each number is only relevant and coherent with respect to another number.
We can’t define “size” because size is only a measure related to another size.
I’m not sure that you could actually define anything at all without having your definition eventually relate to something that involves the defining word.
A circular definition only refers to instances when no new information is being presented in the statement, such as;
“Reality == what is real”
But it is not circular if you state;
“Reality == all that is real”.
The definition ONLY associates affectance to existence. It only assumes that affectance is UNDERSTOOD, not even that it exists.
O
Oreoracle
Guest
No, I’m saying that the idea of affecting entails the idea of existing. This becomes obvious when you try to imagine an interaction between nonexistent things–you can’t, precisely because there are no nonexistent things.
As with existence, numbers are assumed to be understood, just as the reflexive property (x=x) is assumed to be understood. We consider these things axiomatic. It isn’t possible to infer anything without these axioms being assumed.
This is true, and it is why we have undefined terms in mathematics. But the goal of a definition is essentially to rephrase information that isn’t understood to make it understood and applicable. Though circularity is inevitable, the goal is to fend it off long enough to make the term understood in a meaningful way; in other words, to allow us to distinguish between what is being defined and other entities. But your definition collapses into circularity before it even gets off the ground. The very first step after the ability to affect is another entity’s ability to be affected, and thus its existence. The application of the definition crumbles before it crosses the starting line, and this is owing in no small part to the fact that existence is prevalent everywhere: there is no such thing as a nonexistent thing assuming that things are groups of coherent traits.
Perhaps you need to consider whether “existence” even needs a definition if its lack cannot manifest itself.
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
Then you already admit that it is true.
What are you arguing just to have something to argue about?
Definitions are about MEANINGS OF WORDS, not about epistemology.
That is NOT why, either.
The definition has nothing to do with any kind of proving of anything. It makes no circular references. It doesn’t assume any truth other than you understanding what the defining words mean. That is why you cannot use the same word in the definition as the word being defined.
It is ONLY about the words and their concepts. It has nothing at all to do with trying to prove existence.
S
sawman
Guest
Isn’t existence self-evident? Only sentient beings can be aware, and therefore be aware of existence itself? Is this an effect of the sentient being or an affect? How can a self-evident thing be defined?
Peace,
Tom
Peace,
Tom
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
Only to the sane.
Sentience is an issue of quality of awareness, most specifically the quality of self verification (e.g. Did I do what I thought I did? Is this really what I saw? Do these calculations really make sense?).
Sentience is the effect of self-verification. But possessing self-verification affects the ability to maintain it.
Nothing is self-evident nor can anything be defined on this forum.
H
Hubriss
Guest
What…? I said apply your definition to determine if something exists. What are these random questions for?
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
You determine if any of those things exist ONLY by evidence. Evidence is ONLY acquired through transient effect. You only know that there are electrons because of what electrons effect, else you would have no means of detecting ANY evidence of their existence.
The same is true of those questions and all things.
- Status