Is it possible for something to not exist?

[hydvdld]

Philosophically speaking, no. And yes.
Most of you will probably say no. But lets say that dragons don't exist, if they don't exist, then how do we know what they are called, and what they look like. Obviously that means that they exist because how else would we know what they looked like, or their behaviors? Of course you could say that everything exists physically. That would mean that thinking would be impossible, and that we couldn't imagine things in our brains. But we know we can, which shows that things can exist non physically. That means that even if the dragons don't exist physically, they can exist exist as signals between neurons. So they would exist. This shows that it is impossible for something to not exist, and that everything exists

[Arising_uk]

A square circle doesn't exist.

[surreptitious57]

Something shall exist by virtue of being a thing. In order not to exist it would instead have to be nothing
But because something and nothing are physically and logically incompatible something cannot not exist

[Harbal]

. This shows that it is impossible for something to not exist, and that everything exists

Having arrived at this conclusion, of what possible use do you imagine it to be to anyone?

[Greta]

That means that even if the dragons don't exist physically, they can exist exist as signals between neurons. So they would exist. This shows that it is impossible for something to not exist, and that everything exists

Except for those things that have never existed in thought.

[Impenitent]

A square circle doesn't exist.

only in a roundabout sort of way...

-Imp

[HexHammer]

Philosophically speaking, no. And yes.
Most of you will probably say no. But lets say that dragons don't exist, if they don't exist, then how do we know what they are called, and what they look like. Obviously that means that they exist because how else would we know what they looked like, or their behaviors? Of course you could say that everything exists physically. That would mean that thinking would be impossible, and that we couldn't imagine things in our brains. But we know we can, which shows that things can exist non physically. That means that even if the dragons don't exist physically, they can exist exist as signals between neurons. So they would exist. This shows that it is impossible for something to not exist, and that everything exists

Yes, your intellect!

[Hobbes' Choice]

Philosophically speaking, no. And yes.
Most of you will probably say no. But lets say that dragons don't exist, if they don't exist, then how do we know what they are called, and what they look like. Obviously that means that they exist because how else would we know what they looked like, or their behaviors? Of course you could say that everything exists physically. That would mean that thinking would be impossible, and that we couldn't imagine things in our brains. But we know we can, which shows that things can exist non physically. That means that even if the dragons don't exist physically, they can exist exist as signals between neurons. So they would exist. This shows that it is impossible for something to not exist, and that everything exists

The ontological "proof" of the existence of God, has always been a croc of shite. Harry Potter does not exist.

There is a Being greater than the Christian god, who created Him. He wears a Fedora and has ten arms. His name is Norman the Great.
I know his name, now so do you. Thus we have created a being greater than God himself!! Horray - hang on - I have just created a being greater than god. WHoopeee.

[Melchior]

Philosophically speaking, no. And yes.
Most of you will probably say no. But lets say that dragons don't exist, if they don't exist, then how do we know what they are called, and what they look like. Obviously that means that they exist because how else would we know what they looked like, or their behaviors? Of course you could say that everything exists physically. That would mean that thinking would be impossible, and that we couldn't imagine things in our brains. But we know we can, which shows that things can exist non physically. That means that even if the dragons don't exist physically, they can exist exist as signals between neurons. So they would exist. This shows that it is impossible for something to not exist, and that everything exists

"not to exist", not "to not exist". "To not" is not a verb.

[Obvious Leo]

The verb "to exist" is a verb which applies to the present tense. In order for something to be defined as "existing" it must be in a current state of "being". Gods and unicorns can be said to exist as cognitive abstractions but it is only the neural mechanisms which are specifying for these abstractions which can be said to be in a current state of "being". The way we decode these neural mechanisms within the architecture of our consciousness has no such ontological currency.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Philosophically speaking, no. And yes.
Most of you will probably say no. But lets say that dragons don't exist, if they don't exist, then how do we know what they are called, and what they look like. Obviously that means that they exist because how else would we know what they looked like, or their behaviors? Of course you could say that everything exists physically. That would mean that thinking would be impossible, and that we couldn't imagine things in our brains. But we know we can, which shows that things can exist non physically. That means that even if the dragons don't exist physically, they can exist exist as signals between neurons. So they would exist. This shows that it is impossible for something to not exist, and that everything exists

"not to exist", not "to not exist". "To not" is not a verb.

Actually it is the infinitive of the verb: to exist, in the negative. I think we have here an example of a split infinitive; (if i'm wrong I assume Leo will put me right).
Some doubt exists as to whether or not an split infinitive is acceptable.
Anyway, I need to boldly go to another Forum!

[Obvious Leo]

You cast me as the resident forum pedant, Hobbes, which is probably not unfair. I wouldn't call "to not exist" a split infinitive but merely an antonym for the verb "to exist".

Anyway, I need to boldly go to another Forum!

Go boldly.

[Greta]

The verb "to exist" is a verb which applies to the present tense. In order for something to be defined as "existing" it must be in a current state of "being". Gods and unicorns can be said to exist as cognitive abstractions but it is only the neural mechanisms which are specifying for these abstractions which can be said to be in a current state of "being". The way we decode these neural mechanisms within the architecture of our consciousness has no such ontological currency.

Good point. So that means that trilobites don't exist, only their remains. However, they did exist. So Norman the Great also did exist - in Hobbes's mind, and now in my own at present. Norman is a set of glyphs and a neuronal pattern, as observed by the OP. I see Norman the Great as a large muscular viking, with superbly defined and oiled up muscles on his ten arms but with dorky teeth and shaving cuts with small shreds of cigarette paper stuck to them to stop the bleeding (he ditched the Fedora).

Norman exists!! In fact, now he might be immortalised in the internet's historical caches forever!

One day a cyber archaeologist could stumble upon Norman the Great and present a puff piece for the local cyber tabloids. A video game designer notices the article and in inspired to create a Norman the Great character who becomes a smash hit. NTG is a great recycling warrior who travels the world collecting rubbish to be recycled into solar panels. He needs to get the stuff before his nemesis, Cruella Bates-Ratchett, grabs it for herself and recycles the junk into a doomsday weapon. Cruella had badly styled hair with a white stripe through it. She has a taste for coats made from the hair of philosophers, forcibly taken.

Now both Norman and Cruella exist! They briefly, but genuinely, existed in abstract form in my, and perhaps your, neuronal patterns. Deities and, well, anything that doesn't exist in physical reality can exist in abstract subjective form, which of course is what we convert noumena to anyway. So, subjectively, the difference between Norman and a real person in my presence is moot - at least until I need to attend physical exigencies.

[Dubious]

The way we decode these neural mechanisms within the architecture of our consciousness has no such ontological currency.

Can't be true! I KNOW that Homer Simpson exists.

[Obvious Leo]

The way we decode these neural mechanisms within the architecture of our consciousness has no such ontological currency.

Can't be true! I KNOW that Homer Simpson exists.

As always, for every sweeping generalisation there is always one outstanding exception. Homer as the ding an sich has a pleasing appeal to it.