Is the question of reality the only meaningful question?

[Felix]

Steve3007: Suppose person A and person B are standing in a room....

Yes, well, the question of consciousness and objective reality is not all that interesting when confined to human beings since we share the same basic physiology. It gets interesting when we talk about intelligent creatures whose physical make-up and habitats are much different than ours, like octopuses and dolphins.

Octopi have a much more complex nervous system than we do, and they can feel, taste and inspect objects with their limbs. And dolphins are awake 24/7, they must stay awake to control their breathing, otherwise they would drown. They "pause" each of their brain hemispheres in turn while keeping the other one active, and apparently they don't dream. And they feel as well as hear sound vibrations. So all in all, these animals impression of reality has got to be a lot different than ours. For all intents and purposes, we live in different worlds.

If we ever encounter intelligent life on other planets, we can imagine that the difference in physiology and modes of apprehension between us could be so great as to make communication between us nearly impossible. Wouldn't that be a shame? To discover intelligent life and learn that our J.S. Bach and Louis Armstrong recordings are incomprehensible to them, resembling only anomalies in electrical currents or something.

[Repoman05]

Is existence the only thing that proves something is "real?"

Couldn't really be tho, could it?

[Repoman05]

Unfortunately, fallacy is all there is to try and prove anything with logic. Each and every word is an individual argumentum ad populum fallacy.

[Repoman05]

"I drink, therefore I am" possibly a better proof of existence. It mixes physical matter with his proof of thoughts. Makes a fancy UWM shirt too.

[Repoman05]

Now, ask if space exists? That is a harder question. It probably also does not. Hence we call it "space."

theres virtually no known space that contains no matter at all. The existence of space can be measured by the behavior of the matter within it.

[Pantagruel]

So are you saying that "God" arranged the stuff of the Universe in the same way that the builders of the Empire State Building arranged concrete and steel, but that, just like them, He didn't bring that stuff into existence?

Actually my thought was that the "idea of God" could just as easily be instantiated as the "idea of the Empire State building."

[Steve3007]

Actually my thought was that the "idea of God" could just as easily be instantiated as the "idea of the Empire State building."

Ah, ok. I thought you meant it the other way around.

[h_k_s]

Quirks and quarks … .

Your posts quote my posts at the top of them, as if in reply to them. Yet they bear no apparent relation to them. Very odd.

Let me review this issue of yours then … .

[h_k_s]

Time is like mathematics: it only exists in the minds of men (mankind). Outside of the human mind, time like math does not exist.

This is an interesting proposition that I would like to "unpack" a little.

Do you believe that clocks exist in some sense that time doesn't? If a whole load of different people experience a whole load of slightly different, but in some ways similar, sensations and, after a bit of a chat, all of those people agree to label those sensations as "seeing a clock", does that demonstrate that the clock exists? If only one of the people experiences this sensation of seeing a clock and the others don't, what then? What if half the people see it? What if all the people except one see it? Does the total number of people involved make a difference?

Actually it looks more like you Steve3007 have been replying to mine, and then I reply to you. Glad we got that part straight now at least.

[h_k_s]

This is an interesting proposition that I would like to "unpack" a little.

Do you believe that clocks exist in some sense that time doesn't? If a whole load of different people experience a whole load of slightly different, but in some ways similar, sensations and, after a bit of a chat, all of those people agree to label those sensations as "seeing a clock", does that demonstrate that the clock exists? If only one of the people experiences this sensation of seeing a clock and the others don't, what then? What if half the people see it? What if all the people except one see it? Does the total number of people involved make a difference?

Start by asking yourself how did humans get the notion of "time"? What is a "second"?

You will eventually conclude it comes from the heartbeat. Sixty heartbeats is approximately 1 minute.

And sixty of these minutes are approximately also one 1 hour.

And by coincidence, 24 of these hours is approximately one day.

And 365 1/4 of these days approximates the Earth's revolution around our Sun.

But as for time actually existing, it does not and cannot. It is merely an imagined notion of the human mind.

Same as math. It does not exist either. It is merely a collection of definitions and deductions.

Now, ask if space exists? That is a harder question. It probably also does not. Hence we call it "space."

Here, I am trying to answer your question, Steve3007 and help you get a better understanding of the notion of time.

Clearly "time" does not exist. But you don't seem to understand that it does not exist.

[Repoman05]

To wit: I exist.

I've seen a lot if arguments either way. But I'll let this one go and keep my doubts for now.

You exist.

May or may not. They might just be a bot or some other delusion. Besides that, what is the real meaning that the word "you" really even means? Whatever it is it's not dependent on the scribbles use to spell "you."

My cat exists.

The problem with that is that it isn't actually a "cat."

The animals that my cat chases and eats exist.

Only up until it was tortured to death and eaten. It wasn't really an "animal" tho.

The things that the animals that my cat chases and eats exist.

The "bowl" of "food" "you" left out on the "counter" wasn't "running."

The Earth exists and provides a foundation for all living and nonliving inanimate things.

Can a 4 dimensional object really be trapped by a relatively simple mass of scribbles like "earth?"

The atmosphere exists.

I just breathed in and out but when it was going out I didn't even hear even the sound we've all chosen to call it. Could it be something else?

Water in its various forms of moisture, clouds, rain, streams, rivers, lakes, seas and oceans exists.

To maintain subjective accuracy shouldn't it be said h2o instead of water? Water is only one state of h2o, water. Water-vapor, besides having the word "water" within it, is a gas. So really not water at all etc.

And so forth.

Actually there's not much that's axiomatic following something that's innately false.

There is no way to write anything or codify anything else without it being subjective. We cannot perfectly convey anything let alone meaning. All we can do is point to it and beg that someone listens. I can't force you to understand me. I cannot speak into your mind. Even if I could, you could still disregard it as your own madness or however you so fit.

But, is there a difference between subjectivity that's meant to reflect objectivity, and, subjectivity meant to beg the legitimacy of subjectivity? Isn't it obvious? Why isn't it always?

Then why do people imagine zoology as a field of study over pseudo-scientific navel gazing? Why isn't psychology just pseudo-scientific navel gazing for biology and physiology?

Because abundantly arrogant aristocrats control those fields and they don't want to lose political power or stop navel gazing for your tax money.

Is arrogance really our first thought? Is it our first proof against all others? Why then does it carry such negative connotation?

[Repoman05]

Clearly "time" does not exist. But you don't seem to understand that it does not exist.

Can't it be so vast and so ubiquitous that you can't see it? Does it have to only have incaporeal existence? Can't it just like an inch be measured? Not even by observing the behavior of the matter that's within it? Do moldy French fries exist at the same time as fresh French fries? Does it depend on where you got the French fries?

Or is there really no time at all to read this? You did actually already know it was going to go when you started reading it. Did you know it better when you finished?

[Steve3007]

Clearly "time" does not exist. But you don't seem to understand that it does not exist.

Our conversation started when I tried to discuss this statements of yours:

Time is like mathematics: it only exists in the minds of men (mankind). Outside of the human mind, time like math does not exist.

in this post:

viewtopic.php?p=341519#p341519

I tried to explore the idea of what it means for something to exist. Your response was a lot of irrelevant comments about Stephen Hawking (I still don't know why you brought him up. Maybe because I referenced some elementary particles?). One place where you did talk about the question I was hoping to explore was this:

My answer: If an object has actual existence, and we know it, then it exists.

which, as I said, doesn't really shed any light on your view. It just says that if something exists then it exists. I already knew that! I already knew that if X then X. Now you've said this:

Clearly "time" does not exist. But you don't seem to understand that it does not exist.

which also doesn't shed any light as it's just an empty assertion.

All I was trying to do in my earlier posts was explore the question of what it means for something to exist by examining concepts, such as elementary particles, that we experience only indirectly and which are arguably nothing more than mathematical models. This doesn't mean that you have to say this again:

I am not fond nor subscribe to any of Stephen Hawkings' theories or ideas. So I don't engage in arguments over them.

Nobody is going to make you talk about dead celebrity physicists that you don't like.

[Repoman05]

"Nobody is going to make you talk about dead celebrity physicists that you don't like."

I read "theory's" not "people". Why do you read people?

[Steve3007]

I read "theory's" not "people". Why do you read people?

Nothing I have been discussing has anything to do with the late Professor Stephen Hawking or any theories that he may or may not have come up with. I have not mentioned either of those two topics (except to state that I have not mentioned them).

I was simply attempting to discuss the question of what it means for something to be said to exist. One of my as-yet-unattained goals on these forums is for my words to be taken at face value and for posters who quote those words at the beginning of a post, as if replying to them, to reply to them. It's amazing how difficult it can be to persuade people to do that.