hypericinSeptember 19, 2022 at 22:58#7409980 likes
My answer: the past exists, to the extent that the past is embodied in the present. A baby in the past is embodied in an adult in the present, since the adult causally flowed from the baby. But a past event or object which is embodied by nothing in the present, for instance, a butterfly flapping it's wings once 10000 years ago, no longer exists.
Similarly, future objects and events exist to the extent that they are embodied by present antecedents. For instance, a completed sculpture is embodied by a work in progress, but in a fuzzy manner, to the extent that the completed work can still take many forms. But future events and objects which have no antecedents yet, for instance the bar code number on a receipt given to a raven in a far future corvid civilization, does not yet exist in any sense.
hypericinSeptember 19, 2022 at 22:59#7409990 likes
"Einstein said the problem of the Now worried him seriously. He explained that the experience of the Now means something special for man, something essentially different from the past and the future, but that this important difference does not and cannot occur within physics. That this experience cannot be grasped by science seemed to him a matter of painful but inevitable resignation. So he concluded 'that there is something essential about the Now which is just outside the realm of science.' "
Srap TasmanerSeptember 19, 2022 at 23:47#7410170 likes
In your sense, fairies on mars exist as much as my nose.
hypericin
Yep. Both may be the. subject of a predicate.
?
"All the fairies on Mars like rice pudding" appears to predicate of these martian fairies but doesn't entail that any exist.
hypericinSeptember 19, 2022 at 23:57#7410180 likes
Reply to Tate Einstein seems to answer that the past and future exist as much as the present. If we grant this, then there is nothing mysterious about a specialness to "now" that cannot be explained by science. It is simply an illusion. After all, every single "now" has this apparent specialness.
hypericinSeptember 20, 2022 at 00:05#7410190 likes
Reply to Srap Tasmaner At least our Reply to Banno has finally found religion. There is no God worth its salt that cannot be the subject of a predicate.
As the White Queen tried to explain to Alice when Alice said she didn't want any jam:
"Well, I don't want any to-day, at any rate."
"You couldn't have it if you did want it," the Queen said. "The rule is, jam to-morrow and jam yesterday but never jam to-day."
"It must come sometimes to 'jam to-day'," Alice objected.
"No, it can't," said the Queen. "It's jam every other day: to-day isn't any other day, you know."
"I don't understand you," said Alice. "It's dreadfully confusing!"
Our experience seems to suggest to many that there is something special, something unique about the present moment, about now, and it is tempting to think that the universe is continuously changing from one instantaneous state into another and exists only as it is in such an instantaneous state.
There are, I understand, weighty arguments against such a view, but it is how we seem to experience things.
To say "This rock exists" is saying something about the rock. Can this same something be said of the rock of yesterday or tomorrow?
On the one hand this is just an issue of grammar. Things in the past existed, things in the present exist, and things in the future will exist.
On the other hand if "yesterday's rock", "today's rock", and "tomorrow's rock" refer to the same object, and if that object exists, then yesterday's rock exists and tomorrow's rock exists.
Perhaps a more relevant question would be "does the rock exist with the properties it had in the past and/or will have in the future", although I think the remark above regarding the grammar should answer that.
Going back to your own question, "Can something be said of the rock of yesterday or tomorrow?", the answer remains "yes".
The question was "can this same something be said of the rock of yesterday or tomorrow?".
Some X ("it exists") is true of the rock today. He's asking if that X is true of the rock of yesterday and true of the rock of tomorrow. He's not just asking if we can say some Y about the rock of yesterday and some Z about the rock of tomorrow.
That fairies exist is that ?xFx, where Fx means "x is a fairy". If ¬?xFx then fairies do not exist. Some x is my nose but no x is a fairy, therefore my nose exists but fairies don't.
Of all the philosophical ubiquities, the most tedious is "does such-and-such really exist?"
Yes, it does, since you are talking about it.
This isnt consistent with how we ordinarily use or understand the word exists. The claim God does not exist isnt self-refuting, and so that God exists isn't just that God is talked about.
To say "This rock exists" is saying something about the rock. Can this same something be said of the rock of yesterday or tomorrow?
Obviously not.
To say a thing exists, logically references a given, present, temporal domain. The minutia of immediate past or future time being irrelevant, insofar as present specifically denotes the time of the saying, and only by association, the thing as subject of it.
Assuming this rock and the rock are in all ways identical.....
......yesterday I could have said this rock exists, but in the given temporal domain, I can only say this rock exist-ed yesterday, because I can prove that it did, which says something about this rock but does not say the same thing, and.....
.......it follows, under the same conditions, that I can only say this rock may exist tomorrow, because I cannot prove it does or does not, which is also saying something, but not the same something, about this rock.
Easy-peasey.
But says not a damn thing about whether past and future exist. The thread title and the OP have no relation to each other.
javi2541997September 20, 2022 at 11:45#7411440 likes
Of all the philosophical ubiquities, the most tedious is "does such-and-such really exist?"
Yes, it does, since you are talking about it.
:clap: :100:
Agent SmithSeptember 20, 2022 at 11:47#7411450 likes
Maybe we can meet in the middle: the past exists, but in the way you think, but as memories (lessons) and the future exists, again not in the way you think, but as expectations (plans).
bongo furySeptember 20, 2022 at 12:31#7411550 likes
Things in the past existed, things in the present exist, and things in the future will exist.
Or, e.g. for physics, some existing things are spatio-temporal regions wholly earlier than your present point of view, some temporally overlap that point of view, and some are wholly later.
On the other hand if "yesterday's rock", "today's rock", and "tomorrow's rock" refer to the same object [or region of space-time], and if that object [or region not only] exists [but also temporally overlaps your p.o.v.], then yesterday's rock [not only] exists [but also overlaps] and tomorrow's rock [not only] exists [but also overlaps].
Yes, but any temporal slice of the region wholly earlier than today exists, and so does any temporal slice wholly later.
Perhaps a more relevant question would be "does the [temporally overlapping part of the] rock exist with the properties [that existing but temporally non-overlapping parts of] it [have] [s]had in the past and/or will have in the future[/s]"?
which says something about this rock but does not say the same thing
So you understand that you did not answer my question. I am asking if the same thing, the property of existence, can be applied to the rock of the past and future.
"Exists" typically connotes the present only because we don't generally speak of metaphysical topics like the existence of the past and future.
Einstein seems to answer that the past and future exist as much as the present. If we grant this, then there is nothing mysterious about a specialness to "now" that cannot be explained by science. It is simply an illusion. After all, every single "now" has this apparent specialness.
Every single 'now'? Have you ever experienced more than one?
Richard BSeptember 20, 2022 at 21:55#7412490 likes
To say "This rock exists" is saying something about the rock. Can this same something be said of the rock of yesterday or tomorrow?
To say This rock exists is saying something about the rock. But have I said anything less if I just pointed to the rock and said This rock. And would I say anything more if I said This is the rock I stubbed my toe on yesterday and by the way it still exists. You mean now? No, I mean still exists in yesterday.
This is good example of confusion disguised as deep metaphysical musings.
This rock exists cannot be said of the rock of yesterday nor the rock of tomorrow, which is the answer to the question of whether or not it can be said this rock of yesterday or this rock of tomorrow exists.
The me of yesterday can say this rock exists, and the me of tomorrow can say this rock exists, but.....well, that aint happenin, so.....
There is one now in the sense that there is one north. But just like north points in different directions at different points, different moments of time are christened "now".
hypericinSeptember 21, 2022 at 00:01#7412830 likes
I am wondering more about what it is saying about the person who says it and in what situation saying it would be of any use.
Perhaps teaching the language, or a philosophical discussion: "This rock exists. Dragons do not."
Perhaps there is a situation where some rocks are illusory projections.
hypericinSeptember 21, 2022 at 00:05#7412840 likes
And would I say anything more if I said This is the rock I stubbed my toe on yesterday and by the way it still exists. You mean now? No, I mean still exists in yesterday.
This senselessly attaches a metaphysical claim to a mundane one.
There is one now in the sense that there is one north. But just like north points in different directions at different points, different moments of time are christened "now".
Is it a matter of christening? Could I christen yesterday at 10:30 pm "now"?
This rock exists cannot be said of the rock of yesterday nor the rock of tomorrow,
Mww
No, but you can say, "the rock of yesterday exists", "the rock of tomorrow exists".
Of course you can; you just did. Nevertheless, the rock of yesterday exists isnt saying the same as this rock exists.
(Sigh)
Agent SmithSeptember 21, 2022 at 02:30#7413340 likes
The present is 2022 AD. I exist.
We're in the future relative to 1997. I exist.
We're in the past relative to 2060. I exist.
Yep, the past, the present, the future, all, exist!
As per the theory of relativity, there is no one NOW, there are as many of 'em as there are moments, each to be experienced from particular frames of reference.
Consider a loaf of unsliced bread (o, the horror, the horror) as the block universe, a corollary of relativity; each slice is a NOW and you can slice the loaf in any way you wish - if you cut the bread at any angle other than 90[sub]o[/sub] relative to the length of the bread, you might see a slice of the past or the future relative to the base NOW which is at 90[sup]o[/sup] to the length of the bread , that would be your NOW. So says Brian Greene. If you disagree, go take it up with him.
Richard BSeptember 21, 2022 at 03:35#7413420 likes
In a sense, yes, though I'm not sure it helps with the question at hand.
i think we have three options:
(1) Tensed language centered on our notional now (most common);
(2) Untensed language with "timestamps" or times as parameters (common among scientists and not too uncommon among philosophers);
(3) Tensed language centered on some other time than our notional now (pretty uncommon except for the historical present -- the option you asked about).
You can, to some degree, use these three strategies interchangeably and just translate among them. I think they aren't entirely equivalent though, and it shows up not in the content of propositions but in our attitudes toward them. We do not remember the future, for instance, under any scheme. And speaking yesterday of the rock as it is today was future-tense speculation, but for us, looking at it in the present, it's merely fact. I think there's more to all that, but again I'm not sure it helps at all.
(1) Tensed language centered on our notional now (most common);
(2) Untensed language with "timestamps" or times as parameters (common among scientists and not too uncommon among philosophers);
(3) Tensed language centered on some other time than our notional now (pretty uncommon except for the historical present -- the option you asked about).
#1 gives us an image of time as something digital, or pulsing. Existence only applies to the present. The past is gone and future is imaginary.
#2 if scientific, time is affected by gravity, or maybe it's an aspect of gravity. There is no universal Now. The content of now, in terms of events, is relative to the observer. I think I have that right.
#3 is a complex use of language where we enter into a faux world.
According to presentism, if we were to make an accurate list of all the things that exist...there would be not a single merely past or merely future object on the list. Thus, you and the Taj Mahal would be on the list, but neither Socrates nor any future Martian outposts would be included. (Assuming, that is, both (i) that each person is identical to his or her body, and (ii) that Socratess body ceased to be presentthereby going out of existence, according to presentismshortly after he died. Those who reject the first of these assumptions should simply replace the examples in this article involving allegedly non-present people with appropriate examples involving the non-present bodies of those people.) And it is not just Socrates and future Martian outposts, eitherthe same goes for any other putative object that lacks the property of being present. No such objects exist, according to presentism.
There are different ways to oppose presentismthat is, to defend the view that at least some non-present objects exist. One version of non-presentism is eternalism, which says that objects from both the past and the future exist. According to eternalism, non-present objects like Socrates and future Martian outposts exist now, even though they are not currently present. We may not be able to see them at the moment, on this view, and they may not be in the same space-time vicinity that we find ourselves in right now, but they should nevertheless be on the list of all existing things.
It might be objected that there is something odd about attributing to a non-presentist the claim that Socrates exists now, since there is a sense in which that claim is clearly false. In order to forestall this objection, let us distinguish between two senses of x exists now. In one sense, which we can call the temporal location sense, this expression is synonymous with x is present. The non-presentist will admit that, in the temporal location sense of x exists now, it is true that no non-present objects exist now. But in the other sense of x exists now, which we can call the ontological sense, to say that x exists now is just to say that x is now in the domain of our most unrestricted quantifiers. Using the ontological sense of exists, we can talk about something existing in a perfectly general sense, without presupposing anything about its temporal location. When we attribute to non-presentists the claim that non-present objects like Socrates exist right now, we commit non-presentists only to the claim that these non-present objects exist now in the ontological sense (the one involving the most unrestricted quantifiers).
Richard BSeptember 21, 2022 at 15:49#7414890 likes
To say "This rock exists" is saying something about the rock. Can this same something be said of the rock of yesterday or tomorrow?
To say This rock exists in location X is saying something about the rock and its location. Can this same something be said of the rock if it is move to location Y and back to location X, does it exist in location Y still?
Alkis PiskasSeptember 21, 2022 at 16:17#7414940 likes
To say "This rock exists" is saying something about the rock. Can this same something be said of the rock of yesterday or tomorrow?
One can certainly say something about the rock in the present, the present being defined as what is happening right now, at this moment, while I am looking, and maybe feeling, the rock. But I cannot say anything with certainty about that rock when the moment passes and the event is something in the past. Much less can I say anything with certainty about what will happen to this rock in the future.
But I don't think that this example reflects your topic: Do the past and future exist?
Anyway, my answer to that question is "No, they don't". Past refers to something that existed or has happened and passed, so it doesn't exist anymore. Future refers to something that has not happened yet, so of course, it doesnt exist either.
hypericinSeptember 24, 2022 at 22:01#7421900 likes
To say "This rock exists" is saying something about the rock. Can this same something be said of the rock of yesterday or tomorrow?
To clarify: By "Can this same something" , I was referring to the property of existence, however you define it. I am not asking if precisely the same thing can be said. By trying to sidestep "how do you define existence", it looks like I created more confusion.
Metaphysician UndercoverSeptember 25, 2022 at 02:01#7422180 likes
The future and past are very real. The future, as what will be, is a world of possibility. The past, as what has been, is the world of actuality. The difficult part to understand is the present, the world of change. This is when possibility becomes actual. We know the present is real because change is real, and change only occurs at the present.
Agent SmithSeptember 25, 2022 at 07:06#7422540 likes
Time travel would be impossible if the past and the future didn't exist.
Computer, take me to 10,000 BC
Error! Destination does not exist!
Ok, computer, take me to 2345 AD
Error! Destination does not exist!
Ok, computer, where can you take me?
DOES NOT COMPUTE!
hypericinSeptember 25, 2022 at 18:33#7423460 likes
Reply to Metaphysician Undercover
I have a somewhat similar view. I believe the past and future is real, but only by virtue of the present.
The past is not like a museum hall frozen in time. The past is both the progenitor and the imprint on the present. The bite wound on my finger is real, and the event that caused it is real, as it caused and imprinted the present state of my finger, and my memory of it. But as the scar and my memory fades, so does the bite event. In 100 years, the event will have passed from existence.
Similarly, the future is the set of open possibilities which can be arrived at from the present. A future event is real to the extent that it is the likely possibility or range of possibilities. The future event of me sitting in this chair 10 seconds from my typing this sentence is quite real, most paths from the present lead to it. But it is not quite as real as my present state of sitting. Where I will be at this time of day in June is largely undetermined and so has not emerged as real yet. The first thought of my day 20 years from now is barely real yet at all, since it is almost totally unconstrained from this point.
I think the fact that events in the past affect the present, and the events in the present affect the future, should not be confused with either being real.
Neither past nor future is real. If they are real, then where are they?
To say "This rock exists" is saying something about the rock. Can this same something be said of the rock of yesterday or tomorrow?
According to theory of relativity, time is a special kind of space. So you could say that the rock of yesterday or tomorrow exists in that space, just in a different location. However we cannot interact with objects in that space like we can with objects in the usual space, so we use past and future tenses of verbs when talking about past and future.
hypericinSeptember 25, 2022 at 18:46#7423500 likes
Moreover, even if the implication of relativity is true, that past and future are coequally real with the present, doesn't mean that they are real for us.
Similarly, from the god's eye view, there might be billions of other universes. But their events do not intersect ours, at all, and so from our view, they are not real.
Or, there might be an amazing alien civilization "right now" in another galaxy. But it is strictly inaccessible to us, due to the speed of light we are completely limited to imagining it. "unreal" is what only exists in the imagination, and so this civilization is unreal to us.
hypericinSeptember 25, 2022 at 18:49#7423510 likes
The past and future are right here, embodied in the present.
You could not understand yourself without understanding that you were born. Your current state of affairs all flow directly from the event of your birth. Therefore your birth is a real event, you experience it right now, that will have completely passed from existence in a hundred thousand years.
hypericinSeptember 25, 2022 at 18:59#7423530 likes
According to theory of relativity, time is a special kind of space. So you could say that the rock of yesterday or tomorrow exists in that space, just in a different location.
So then the passage of time is an illusion, we experience every moment "simultaneously".
But we are "flatland" creatures living in a 4d universe confined to a 3d space, which, from our perspective, is drifting through the 4th dimension. Is 3d space real to flatlanders? I would say, only to the extent that it impinges on their 2d world. Events in 3d space which do not intersect their 2d world do not exist for the flatlanders.
Your current state of affairs all flow directly from the event of your birth. Therefore your birth is a real event, ...
It probably was a real event. We have reason to think that. Does that still exist today? I would argue no, and thus it is not real. Just a memory, a conception, a reasoned argument, but nothing real.
Can I touch the past and the future? Can you point to it so I can verify it exists?
When you touch a Greek stature you are touching the present day successor to a far past event and object. When you wrote the above your past writing reverberated into my present. I see it right now.
Just a memory, a conception, a reasoned argument, but nothing real.
The distinction between "real" and "unreal" is the distinction between mind independence and mind dependence. A rock is mind independent, and so real, while a dragon is completely mind dependent. The event of your birth does not depend on the state of anyone's mind. It is real, and it's mind independent reality extends to right now.
When you touch a Greek stature you are touching the present day successor to a far past event and object. When you wrote the above your past writing reverberated into my present. I see it right now.
I think that's an illusion. When I touch a Greek statue, I touch a Greek statue in the present. Everything I associate with that Greek statue, including its history, happens in my mind. We may have ideas of what the statue represents, where it came from, how old it is, but these are just educated guesses by historians. There's nothing real about that in the philosophical sense.
The event of your birth does not depend on the state of anyone's mind.
I think it does. Recollections of the past are notoriously subjective. If there is no one around to remember my birth, does it still exist? If so, where?
Reply to hypericin You are choosing to think in antirealist terms. The consequence is rejecting bivalence and moving to non-classical logic. Hence your question, in the OP.
Perhaps you think you are describing how things are. But what you are doing is choosing between various ways of talking about how things are. I suspect you suppose yourself to have made a metaphysical discovery, that events in the past and future do not have a truth value. You haven't.
In the way of speaking you have chosen, there may be no truths about past and future events. Now it seems to me that this forms a reductio, and a good reason for rejecting antirealism; that it is better to choose a way of talking that permits events in the past to be true or false.
All this to return to the answer to your question: It is true that the rock existed yesterday.
The one in my yard, that Wife wants moved over to the new garden bed. It's been under the tree for years. This is how we do, and also how we ought, talk about rocks.
But that little hook, 'To be "real" means to be mind independent', thrown into the water by Kant, has led you into all sorts of unforeseen difficulties.
hypericinSeptember 25, 2022 at 22:57#7424080 likes
1. I do not rejected classical logic. But it is not a complete tool, much as Newtonian physics is an accurate but incomplete description. The world seen through the lens of language is simply not bivalent.
2. Rejecting bivalence is not antirealism., in fact quite the opposite. It is rejecting a distortion that prevents a faithful rendering of what is real.
3. That truth or falsity depends merely on the manner in which we speak of seems decidedly antirealist to me.
4. You quoted a discussion where I was defending the reality of the past and future. Its just that this reality, as most things, is not 0 or 1.
Reply to hypericin
If you take reality to be mind independent then you commit to there being statements that are neither true nor false - like that the rock existed yesterday. Hence you drop classical logic in favour of some form of paraconsistent logic. While rejecting bivalence need not lead to antirealism, antirealism does lead to rejecting bivalence.
Seems to me you are not happy with the consequences of reality being mind independent. Might be time to reconsider it.
hypericinSeptember 26, 2022 at 01:38#7424610 likes
It does? That's not what the dictionary says. At the least, some explanation is required. Wouldn't it be better to say that what is real is what is true?
SO, tell us about mind independence...
How's that work?
Agent SmithSeptember 26, 2022 at 03:05#7424780 likes
To approach the issue of what reality is/isn't on the basis of mind dependence/independence is, as you can see, a dead end. It seems impossible to tell which is true i.e. the truth is beyond our reach. We can argue though and we are doing exactly that. Personally, I'd propose a motion to change the definitions of real and unreal, to ones that we can actually use to decide questions on whether something is real or not.
hypericinSeptember 26, 2022 at 06:26#7425040 likes
Wouldn't it be better to say that what is real is what is true?
Absolutely not.
.
actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed
This is just another way of saying, mind independent. Real/unreal is a conceptual divide which separates that which exists independently of our thoughts of it from that which is our thoughts of it.
True/false is a different divide, which categorizes statements, not existents.
actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed
This is just another way of saying, mind independent.
What twaddle.
As if facts were not, every one, true.
Not seeing any progress here. Seems as you decide to talk about things the wrong way, then reach the conclusion that rocks didn't exist. More fool you.
hypericinSeptember 26, 2022 at 07:42#7425170 likes
Reply to Banno
I see, sentences are real and rocks are true. This must be an extension of your private, idiosyncratic language where "to exist" means being the subject of a predicate. Why your personal language should be of interest to anyone else is beyond me.
Mind independence is simply what "real" means. What is your problem with this definition?
So my mind isn't real? My thoughts and feelings aren't real?
Also a toy gun isn't a real gun, but (for the sake of argument) toy guns are mind-independent.
"Real" doesn't just mean "mind-independent". Which is why I have often said that antirealism isn't unrealism. It's unfortunate that realism is called realism. It leads to the kind of equivocation that you appear to be making here.
All this to return to the answer to your question: It is true that the rock existed yesterday.
From my understanding @hypericin isn't asking if the rock existed yesterday. He's asking which theory of time is correct: growing block, presentism, or eternalism.
Now to say that the rock exists is not to say something about the rock. Existence is not a predicate in the way being granite is.
Maybe not in classical logic, but perhaps classical logic doesn't really fit with ordinary language, hence the development of free logic which makes for claims like "God does not exist" possible, and which some of us accept as true.
Or if you want to continue with classical logic then consider what I said here:
That fairies exist is that ?xFx, where Fx means "x is a fairy". If ¬?xFx then fairies do not exist. Some x is my nose but no x is a fairy, therefore my nose exists but fairies don't.
bongo furySeptember 26, 2022 at 11:44#7425780 likes
Now to say that the rock exists is not to say something about the rock. Existence is not a predicate in the way being granite is.
Only insofar as our favourite logic treats it with a special predicate (ish) called a quantifier.
?x T(x) ? R(x)
But in other words,
An x exists such that x is this and x rocks.
Hmm, how about a rockifier?
?x T(x) ? E(x)
An x rocks such that x is this and x exists.
Obviously this would be silly. But the utility of the canonical expression is in requiring an upfront commitment as to the perfectly sensible question whether or not such an x exists.
The distinction between "real" and "unreal" is the distinction between mind independence and mind dependence.
Can you talk about anything at all, that isnt dependent on the thought of it?
How can anything at all be mind independent, when mind is that which determines what independence is? How can anything be said to be mind independent if the mind has already thought of it?
Just to assert a distinction of anything presupposes a necessary relation which cannot be given from the assertion itself. Even to merely perceive a difference presupposes that which recognizes that there is one, whether entailment of what the difference is occurs or not.
The distinction between the real and the unreal is given merely from the principle of complementarity a priori, but the principle itself is mind dependent. Whatever is real is not unreal, and whatever is unreal is not real. The relation between real and unreal needs to be distinguished long before the relation of either one to its dependence on the mind. Oooooo.....the irony.
-
.....Transcendental idealism allows that the objects of external intuitionas intuited in space, and all changes in timeas represented by the internal sense, are real....
.....which just suggests, whichever philosophy is used determines what mind independence means.
hypericinSeptember 26, 2022 at 16:59#7426680 likes
From my understand hypericin isn't asking if the rock existed yesterday. He's asking which theory of time is correct: growing block, presentism, or eternalism.
Yes, I regret the way I phrased it.
hypericinSeptember 26, 2022 at 17:07#7426690 likes
So my mind isn't real? My thoughts and feelings aren't real?
Your thoughts and feelings themselves are real. But it is what they are about that is in question. When one says "X is real", this does not mean, "My thought that X is real". These are two different assertions.
My thoughts are real. My thoughts are not mind-independent. Therefore some things which are real are not mind-independent. Therefore real doesnt mean mind-independent.
hypericinSeptember 26, 2022 at 17:18#7426760 likes
My thoughts are real. My thoughts are not mind-independent. Therefore some things which are real are not mind-independent. Therefore real doesnt mean mind-independent.
Rather than "mind independent", how about "independent of thoughts about them"? When you say "my thoughts are real", you are thinking about your thoughts. You will have thoughts whether or not you think about having thoughts. Reply to Mww
Even better, I like "Existence not contingent on having thoughts about them".
hypericinSeptember 26, 2022 at 23:09#7427680 likes
Reply to hypericin What are you asking? How to parse "the rock exists" for an illusionary rock? How to pars "the illusion exists" for an illusion? Once you decide, you can parse each, easily.
hypericinSeptember 27, 2022 at 02:15#7428130 likes
Reply to Banno If "the rock exists" says nothing about the rock, if the rock might be illusory, how can "the rock exists" point out that the rock is not an illusion?
Reply to hypericin The rock might be an illusion, it might not. You are playing on various senses of 'exists". That's the generic issue I pointed to in my response to your OP: Quoting Banno
You are asking the wrong question. You might usefully ask what such-and-such is, or how we use the term "such-and-such".
dimosthenis9September 27, 2022 at 11:32#7428910 likes
Mind independence is simply what "real" means. What is your problem with this definition?
The problem with that definition is that by that ,we cannot say about anything at all that is "real".Since every procedure that allows us know/think/consider something as "real" is made via our minds.So nothing at all is actually mind independent.
Your thoughts and feelings themselves are real. But it is what they are about that is in question.
If thoughts are real, then everything thought about must be as real as the thought of it, insofar as an empty thought is a contradiction. But the real in thought is never sufficient for the empirical existence of its object in reality. Hence, the thought of the rock of yesterday is a thought just as real as the thought of this rock today, but the existence of either rock is not given by mere thoughts about it.
The validity of things real in thought is a determination of logical reason a priori, and is called a cognition (of); the proof of the reality of the things real in thought, is a determination of practical reason a posteriori, and is called experience (of).
Perhaps now it is clear the original argument is grammatically flawed, insofar far as the existence of this rock in a particular time and place, is regulated by its mode of reason, but the existence of the rock, which is not necessarily this rock but merely signifies any rock in general, of arbitrary past or future time and place, is regulated by its mode of reason. It is therefore unjustifiable to say the same thing about those by which the determinations of each depends on non-congruent modes.
-
When you say "my thoughts are real", you are thinking about your thoughts.
The saying is not the thinking, but merely presupposes thinking for its antecedent, and represents thinking as its consequent. The only reason for language is the impossibility of communication by thinking. When I tell you my thoughts are real, all Im doing is informing you about something of which Ive already informed myself.
Hence, the thought of the rock of yesterday is a thought just as real as the thought of this rock today, but the existence of either rock is not given by mere thoughts about it.
It is therefore unjustifiable to say the same thing about those by which the determinations of each depends on non-congruent modes.
I don't really know what you are going on about. And it is frankly not interesting to me. I don't want to quibble about grammar. My question is, do the past and future exist? My phrasing in the op was an attempt to eliminate "define exist" responses. This was a blunder on my part.
he saying is not the thinking, but merely presupposes thinking for its antecedent, and represents thinking as its consequent
More quibbling. My point is, the reality of thought is not an argument against the notion of "real" as "mind independence", in the sense that its existence is not contingent on thought. Thought is real insofar as its existence is not contingent on thought about thought.
hypericinSeptember 27, 2022 at 18:55#7429390 likes
Reply to Banno I see only one sense of exist. The lump of granite exists, or it does not. The deity exists, or it does not. The past exists, or it does not.
And the relevance of your self quote, afaict, does not exist.
hypericinSeptember 27, 2022 at 19:12#7429410 likes
The problem with that definition is that by that ,we cannot say about anything at all that is "real".Since every procedure that allows us know/think/consider something as "real" is made via our minds.So nothing at all is actually mind independent.
A better definition is "existence independent of thoughts about it".
Comments (98)
Similarly, future objects and events exist to the extent that they are embodied by present antecedents. For instance, a completed sculpture is embodied by a work in progress, but in a fuzzy manner, to the extent that the completed work can still take many forms. But future events and objects which have no antecedents yet, for instance the bar code number on a receipt given to a raven in a far future corvid civilization, does not yet exist in any sense.
Yes, it does, since you are talking about it.
You are asking the wrong question. You might usefully ask what such-and-such is, or how we use the term "such-and-such".
Quoting Banno
How about the term "exist"?
You collapse the distinction that the term "exists" picks out. In your sense, fairies on mars exist as much as my nose.
Quoting Banno
Who made you arbiter of right and wrong questions?
Yep. Both may be the. subject of a predicate.
The way that first-order logic deals with individuals gives us a clear way of dealing with existential issues.
Going back to your own question, "Can something be said of the rock of yesterday or tomorrow?", the answer remains "yes".
Quoting hypericin
I can lead you to water, but not make you drink.
Ask me tomorrow.
Nope. This is just not how we use "exist". If it were, "x does not exist" would be a contradiction.
Quoting Banno :lol:
Here's an interesting quote from Carnap:
"Einstein said the problem of the Now worried him seriously. He explained that the experience of the Now means something special for man, something essentially different from the past and the future, but that this important difference does not and cannot occur within physics. That this experience cannot be grasped by science seemed to him a matter of painful but inevitable resignation. So he concluded 'that there is something essential about the Now which is just outside the realm of science.' "
?
"All the fairies on Mars like rice pudding" appears to predicate of these martian fairies but doesn't entail that any exist.
Indeed. My error was to supose that folk here wanted clarification. They prefer obfuscation.
As if putting a piece on the board were a move in chess.
What you've said was clear enough. Clearly wrong. But clear, yes.
Quoting Banno
Except for your analogy.
I think it's a perfectly good question.
Our experience seems to suggest to many that there is something special, something unique about the present moment, about now, and it is tempting to think that the universe is continuously changing from one instantaneous state into another and exists only as it is in such an instantaneous state.
There are, I understand, weighty arguments against such a view, but it is how we seem to experience things.
Sure. And the answer is "yes".
1. Becoming and Unbecoming are impossible because we can't get an x from what x is not and neither can what x is not get us to an x.
Ergo
2. The past did exist and so it can't not exist. It still exists.
3. The future can't come into existence, but we're traveling into the future as I write this and so the future too exists.
The long and short of it
1. The past, present, and future ALL exist.
:snicker:
On the one hand this is just an issue of grammar. Things in the past existed, things in the present exist, and things in the future will exist.
On the other hand if "yesterday's rock", "today's rock", and "tomorrow's rock" refer to the same object, and if that object exists, then yesterday's rock exists and tomorrow's rock exists.
Perhaps a more relevant question would be "does the rock exist with the properties it had in the past and/or will have in the future", although I think the remark above regarding the grammar should answer that.
The question was "can this same something be said of the rock of yesterday or tomorrow?".
Some X ("it exists") is true of the rock today. He's asking if that X is true of the rock of yesterday and true of the rock of tomorrow. He's not just asking if we can say some Y about the rock of yesterday and some Z about the rock of tomorrow.
Quoting hypericin
Quoting Banno
That fairies exist is that ?xFx, where Fx means "x is a fairy". If ¬?xFx then fairies do not exist. Some x is my nose but no x is a fairy, therefore my nose exists but fairies don't.
Quoting Banno
This isnt consistent with how we ordinarily use or understand the word exists. The claim God does not exist isnt self-refuting, and so that God exists isn't just that God is talked about.
Obviously not.
To say a thing exists, logically references a given, present, temporal domain. The minutia of immediate past or future time being irrelevant, insofar as present specifically denotes the time of the saying, and only by association, the thing as subject of it.
Assuming this rock and the rock are in all ways identical.....
......yesterday I could have said this rock exists, but in the given temporal domain, I can only say this rock exist-ed yesterday, because I can prove that it did, which says something about this rock but does not say the same thing, and.....
.......it follows, under the same conditions, that I can only say this rock may exist tomorrow, because I cannot prove it does or does not, which is also saying something, but not the same something, about this rock.
Easy-peasey.
But says not a damn thing about whether past and future exist. The thread title and the OP have no relation to each other.
:clap: :100:
Or, e.g. for physics, some existing things are spatio-temporal regions wholly earlier than your present point of view, some temporally overlap that point of view, and some are wholly later.
Quoting Michael
Yes, but any temporal slice of the region wholly earlier than today exists, and so does any temporal slice wholly later.
Quoting Michael
Quoting Michael
I.e. the existing space-time region is a fairy.
Quoting Mww
So you understand that you did not answer my question. I am asking if the same thing, the property of existence, can be applied to the rock of the past and future.
"Exists" typically connotes the present only because we don't generally speak of metaphysical topics like the existence of the past and future.
I am wondering more about what it is saying about the person who says it and in what situation saying it would be of any use.
Every single 'now'? Have you ever experienced more than one?
To say This rock exists is saying something about the rock. But have I said anything less if I just pointed to the rock and said This rock. And would I say anything more if I said This is the rock I stubbed my toe on yesterday and by the way it still exists. You mean now? No, I mean still exists in yesterday.
This is good example of confusion disguised as deep metaphysical musings.
This rock exists.
To say the same thing is to say this rock exists.
This rock exists cannot be said of the rock of yesterday nor the rock of tomorrow, which is the answer to the question of whether or not it can be said this rock of yesterday or this rock of tomorrow exists.
The me of yesterday can say this rock exists, and the me of tomorrow can say this rock exists, but.....well, that aint happenin, so.....
Quoting Fooloso4
.....yep, just like that.
Of course. Just not simultaneously.
That's a word game. There's only one now.
There is one now in the sense that there is one north. But just like north points in different directions at different points, different moments of time are christened "now".
Perhaps teaching the language, or a philosophical discussion: "This rock exists. Dragons do not."
Perhaps there is a situation where some rocks are illusory projections.
No, but you can say, "the rock of yesterday exists", "the rock of tomorrow exists".
The issue cannot be reduced to grammar.
"This rock" merely points attention to the rock.
Quoting Richard B
This senselessly attaches a metaphysical claim to a mundane one.
Quoting Richard B
I make no claim to philosophical depth, but you are the one confused.
Is it a matter of christening? Could I christen yesterday at 10:30 pm "now"?
Teacher: This rock exists.
Student: What about that rock?
Teacher: That rock exists.
Student: And these others, do they exist.
Teacher: Yes, all these rocks exist.
Student: Then do all rocks exist?
Teacher: No.
Student: Which rocks don't exist?
Teacher: Um, none of them.
Student: So, all rocks do exist!
Teacher: Er, yes.
Student: Then why are you telling me that this rock exists?
It is true, that I am confused - like if someone ask me how many touchdowns were scored in a baseball game.
Quoting hypericin
And This rock exist does not do the same?
Of course you can; you just did. Nevertheless, the rock of yesterday exists isnt saying the same as this rock exists.
(Sigh)
We're in the future relative to 1997. I exist.
We're in the past relative to 2060. I exist.
Yep, the past, the present, the future, all, exist!
As per the theory of relativity, there is no one NOW, there are as many of 'em as there are moments, each to be experienced from particular frames of reference.
Consider a loaf of unsliced bread (o, the horror, the horror) as the block universe, a corollary of relativity; each slice is a NOW and you can slice the loaf in any way you wish - if you cut the bread at any angle other than 90[sub]o[/sub] relative to the length of the bread, you might see a slice of the past or the future relative to the base NOW which is at 90[sup]o[/sup] to the length of the bread , that would be your NOW. So says Brian Greene. If you disagree, go take it up with him.
I think all that was said was that you exist in 2022.
Ok!
In a sense, yes, though I'm not sure it helps with the question at hand.
i think we have three options:
(1) Tensed language centered on our notional now (most common);
(2) Untensed language with "timestamps" or times as parameters (common among scientists and not too uncommon among philosophers);
(3) Tensed language centered on some other time than our notional now (pretty uncommon except for the historical present -- the option you asked about).
You can, to some degree, use these three strategies interchangeably and just translate among them. I think they aren't entirely equivalent though, and it shows up not in the content of propositions but in our attitudes toward them. We do not remember the future, for instance, under any scheme. And speaking yesterday of the rock as it is today was future-tense speculation, but for us, looking at it in the present, it's merely fact. I think there's more to all that, but again I'm not sure it helps at all.
#1 gives us an image of time as something digital, or pulsing. Existence only applies to the present. The past is gone and future is imaginary.
#2 if scientific, time is affected by gravity, or maybe it's an aspect of gravity. There is no universal Now. The content of now, in terms of events, is relative to the observer. I think I have that right.
#3 is a complex use of language where we enter into a faux world.
To say This rock exists in location X is saying something about the rock and its location. Can this same something be said of the rock if it is move to location Y and back to location X, does it exist in location Y still?
One can certainly say something about the rock in the present, the present being defined as what is happening right now, at this moment, while I am looking, and maybe feeling, the rock. But I cannot say anything with certainty about that rock when the moment passes and the event is something in the past. Much less can I say anything with certainty about what will happen to this rock in the future.
But I don't think that this example reflects your topic: Do the past and future exist?
Anyway, my answer to that question is "No, they don't". Past refers to something that existed or has happened and passed, so it doesn't exist anymore. Future refers to something that has not happened yet, so of course, it doesnt exist either.
To clarify: By "Can this same something" , I was referring to the property of existence, however you define it. I am not asking if precisely the same thing can be said. By trying to sidestep "how do you define existence", it looks like I created more confusion.
Ha!
Computer, take me to 10,000 BC
Error! Destination does not exist!
Ok, computer, take me to 2345 AD
Error! Destination does not exist!
Ok, computer, where can you take me?
DOES NOT COMPUTE!
I have a somewhat similar view. I believe the past and future is real, but only by virtue of the present.
The past is not like a museum hall frozen in time. The past is both the progenitor and the imprint on the present. The bite wound on my finger is real, and the event that caused it is real, as it caused and imprinted the present state of my finger, and my memory of it. But as the scar and my memory fades, so does the bite event. In 100 years, the event will have passed from existence.
Similarly, the future is the set of open possibilities which can be arrived at from the present. A future event is real to the extent that it is the likely possibility or range of possibilities. The future event of me sitting in this chair 10 seconds from my typing this sentence is quite real, most paths from the present lead to it. But it is not quite as real as my present state of sitting. Where I will be at this time of day in June is largely undetermined and so has not emerged as real yet. The first thought of my day 20 years from now is barely real yet at all, since it is almost totally unconstrained from this point.
Neither past nor future is real. If they are real, then where are they?
According to theory of relativity, time is a special kind of space. So you could say that the rock of yesterday or tomorrow exists in that space, just in a different location. However we cannot interact with objects in that space like we can with objects in the usual space, so we use past and future tenses of verbs when talking about past and future.
Similarly, from the god's eye view, there might be billions of other universes. But their events do not intersect ours, at all, and so from our view, they are not real.
Or, there might be an amazing alien civilization "right now" in another galaxy. But it is strictly inaccessible to us, due to the speed of light we are completely limited to imagining it. "unreal" is what only exists in the imagination, and so this civilization is unreal to us.
The past and future are right here, embodied in the present.
You could not understand yourself without understanding that you were born. Your current state of affairs all flow directly from the event of your birth. Therefore your birth is a real event, you experience it right now, that will have completely passed from existence in a hundred thousand years.
So then the passage of time is an illusion, we experience every moment "simultaneously".
But we are "flatland" creatures living in a 4d universe confined to a 3d space, which, from our perspective, is drifting through the 4th dimension. Is 3d space real to flatlanders? I would say, only to the extent that it impinges on their 2d world. Events in 3d space which do not intersect their 2d world do not exist for the flatlanders.
I don't know what you mean by that. Can I touch the past and the future? Can you point to it so I can verify it exists?
Quoting hypericin
It probably was a real event. We have reason to think that. Does that still exist today? I would argue no, and thus it is not real. Just a memory, a conception, a reasoned argument, but nothing real.
Quoting hypericin
I don't believe I am experiencing my birth right now, unless we have very different ideas of what it means to be born.
When you touch a Greek stature you are touching the present day successor to a far past event and object. When you wrote the above your past writing reverberated into my present. I see it right now.
Quoting Tzeentch
The distinction between "real" and "unreal" is the distinction between mind independence and mind dependence. A rock is mind independent, and so real, while a dragon is completely mind dependent. The event of your birth does not depend on the state of anyone's mind. It is real, and it's mind independent reality extends to right now.
Quoting Tzeentch
You're whole life is the experience of your birth.
I think that's an illusion. When I touch a Greek statue, I touch a Greek statue in the present. Everything I associate with that Greek statue, including its history, happens in my mind. We may have ideas of what the statue represents, where it came from, how old it is, but these are just educated guesses by historians. There's nothing real about that in the philosophical sense.
Quoting hypericin
I think it does. Recollections of the past are notoriously subjective. If there is no one around to remember my birth, does it still exist? If so, where?
Quoting hypericin
I think I am just experiencing life in the present right now.
To be "real" means to be mind independent. Do you really believe historical events are not mind independent?
Quoting Tzeentch
As long as you are alive or your life had impacts, it exists in its effects on the world. Eventually that effect will fade away.
There's the hook, little fishy.
Perhaps you think you are describing how things are. But what you are doing is choosing between various ways of talking about how things are. I suspect you suppose yourself to have made a metaphysical discovery, that events in the past and future do not have a truth value. You haven't.
In the way of speaking you have chosen, there may be no truths about past and future events. Now it seems to me that this forms a reductio, and a good reason for rejecting antirealism; that it is better to choose a way of talking that permits events in the past to be true or false.
All this to return to the answer to your question: It is true that the rock existed yesterday.
The one in my yard, that Wife wants moved over to the new garden bed. It's been under the tree for years. This is how we do, and also how we ought, talk about rocks.
But that little hook, 'To be "real" means to be mind independent', thrown into the water by Kant, has led you into all sorts of unforeseen difficulties.
1. I do not rejected classical logic. But it is not a complete tool, much as Newtonian physics is an accurate but incomplete description. The world seen through the lens of language is simply not bivalent.
2. Rejecting bivalence is not antirealism., in fact quite the opposite. It is rejecting a distortion that prevents a faithful rendering of what is real.
3. That truth or falsity depends merely on the manner in which we speak of seems decidedly antirealist to me.
4. You quoted a discussion where I was defending the reality of the past and future. Its just that this reality, as most things, is not 0 or 1.
If you take reality to be mind independent then you commit to there being statements that are neither true nor false - like that the rock existed yesterday. Hence you drop classical logic in favour of some form of paraconsistent logic. While rejecting bivalence need not lead to antirealism, antirealism does lead to rejecting bivalence.
Seems to me you are not happy with the consequences of reality being mind independent. Might be time to reconsider it.
What's wrong with reality being mind independent? Why do you think I am unhappy?
Mind independence is simply what "real" means. What is your problem with this definition?
It does? That's not what the dictionary says. At the least, some explanation is required. Wouldn't it be better to say that what is real is what is true?
SO, tell us about mind independence...
How's that work?
Absolutely not.
.
This is just another way of saying, mind independent. Real/unreal is a conceptual divide which separates that which exists independently of our thoughts of it from that which is our thoughts of it.
True/false is a different divide, which categorizes statements, not existents.
What twaddle.
As if facts were not, every one, true.
Not seeing any progress here. Seems as you decide to talk about things the wrong way, then reach the conclusion that rocks didn't exist. More fool you.
I see, sentences are real and rocks are true. This must be an extension of your private, idiosyncratic language where "to exist" means being the subject of a predicate. Why your personal language should be of interest to anyone else is beyond me.
So my mind isn't real? My thoughts and feelings aren't real?
Also a toy gun isn't a real gun, but (for the sake of argument) toy guns are mind-independent.
"Real" doesn't just mean "mind-independent". Which is why I have often said that antirealism isn't unrealism. It's unfortunate that realism is called realism. It leads to the kind of equivocation that you appear to be making here.
From my understanding @hypericin isn't asking if the rock existed yesterday. He's asking which theory of time is correct: growing block, presentism, or eternalism.
Quoting hypericin
Now to say that the rock exists is not to say something about the rock. Existence is not a predicate in the way being granite is.
and to be "real" is not to be mind independent.
Maybe not in classical logic, but perhaps classical logic doesn't really fit with ordinary language, hence the development of free logic which makes for claims like "God does not exist" possible, and which some of us accept as true.
Or if you want to continue with classical logic then consider what I said here:
Only insofar as our favourite logic treats it with a special predicate (ish) called a quantifier.
?x T(x) ? R(x)
But in other words,
An x exists such that x is this and x rocks.
Hmm, how about a rockifier?
?x T(x) ? E(x)
An x rocks such that x is this and x exists.
Obviously this would be silly. But the utility of the canonical expression is in requiring an upfront commitment as to the perfectly sensible question whether or not such an x exists.
Can you talk about anything at all, that isnt dependent on the thought of it?
How can anything at all be mind independent, when mind is that which determines what independence is? How can anything be said to be mind independent if the mind has already thought of it?
Just to assert a distinction of anything presupposes a necessary relation which cannot be given from the assertion itself. Even to merely perceive a difference presupposes that which recognizes that there is one, whether entailment of what the difference is occurs or not.
The distinction between the real and the unreal is given merely from the principle of complementarity a priori, but the principle itself is mind dependent. Whatever is real is not unreal, and whatever is unreal is not real. The relation between real and unreal needs to be distinguished long before the relation of either one to its dependence on the mind. Oooooo.....the irony.
-
.....Transcendental idealism allows that the objects of external intuitionas intuited in space, and all changes in timeas represented by the internal sense, are real....
.....which just suggests, whichever philosophy is used determines what mind independence means.
Yes, I regret the way I phrased it.
"define real" produces two definitions:
"actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed."
"(of a substance or thing) not imitation or artificial; genuine."
It is an unfortunate fact that multiple meanings will forever muddle all philosophical discussion. Let's restrict the conversation to the first usage.
Quoting Michael
Your thoughts and feelings themselves are real. But it is what they are about that is in question. When one says "X is real", this does not mean, "My thought that X is real". These are two different assertions.
My thoughts are real. My thoughts are not mind-independent. Therefore some things which are real are not mind-independent. Therefore real doesnt mean mind-independent.
Rather than "mind independent", how about "independent of thoughts about them"? When you say "my thoughts are real", you are thinking about your thoughts. You will have thoughts whether or not you think about having thoughts.
Even better, I like "Existence not contingent on having thoughts about them".
Gibberish.
How would you or presumably they handle illusions? Suppose the rock is illusory. Illusions exist, yes yes, but the sentence is "the rock exists"
How can "god exists" be meaningful?
Quoting Banno
The problem with that definition is that by that ,we cannot say about anything at all that is "real".Since every procedure that allows us know/think/consider something as "real" is made via our minds.So nothing at all is actually mind independent.
Quoting hypericin
If thoughts are real, then everything thought about must be as real as the thought of it, insofar as an empty thought is a contradiction. But the real in thought is never sufficient for the empirical existence of its object in reality. Hence, the thought of the rock of yesterday is a thought just as real as the thought of this rock today, but the existence of either rock is not given by mere thoughts about it.
The validity of things real in thought is a determination of logical reason a priori, and is called a cognition (of); the proof of the reality of the things real in thought, is a determination of practical reason a posteriori, and is called experience (of).
Perhaps now it is clear the original argument is grammatically flawed, insofar far as the existence of this rock in a particular time and place, is regulated by its mode of reason, but the existence of the rock, which is not necessarily this rock but merely signifies any rock in general, of arbitrary past or future time and place, is regulated by its mode of reason. It is therefore unjustifiable to say the same thing about those by which the determinations of each depends on non-congruent modes.
-
Quoting hypericin
The saying is not the thinking, but merely presupposes thinking for its antecedent, and represents thinking as its consequent. The only reason for language is the impossibility of communication by thinking. When I tell you my thoughts are real, all Im doing is informing you about something of which Ive already informed myself.
Quoting hypericin
Of course. And.......??? Not sure how this tautological truism relates to whats been said.
Yes this is obvious.
Quoting Mww
I don't really know what you are going on about. And it is frankly not interesting to me. I don't want to quibble about grammar. My question is, do the past and future exist? My phrasing in the op was an attempt to eliminate "define exist" responses. This was a blunder on my part.
Quoting Mww
More quibbling. My point is, the reality of thought is not an argument against the notion of "real" as "mind independence", in the sense that its existence is not contingent on thought. Thought is real insofar as its existence is not contingent on thought about thought.
And the relevance of your self quote, afaict, does not exist.
A better definition is "existence independent of thoughts about it".