Atla wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2025 7:19 am
Is that different from the kind of plain ordinary realism where all things exist in relation to one another?
Plain ordinary realism isn't relational at all. It is objective. A thing is part of reality or it isn't, period.
Andy Kay wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2025 12:02 pm
]So you're saying that IF it's meaningful to say "there is something" then you are indeed calling into question the claim that
there is something rather than nothing. So are you saying that it IS meaningful or that it's NOT meaningful?
It is syntactially meaningful under some definitions of 'existing', and not meaningful under other definitions. Yes, it is meaningful given an objective definition. I am no realist, so I lay no claim as to what has the property of existence and what doesn't since I cannot think of empirical ways in which it would matter. It only matters when two things interact, in which case it seems likely that both things need to have the same setting of that property, so if there is an 'I' that doubts, then that doubt would have the same ontology as the 'I': either both exist or both do not.
Of course all that is nonsense if you presume that premise I keep mentioning: that (objective) existence is prior to predication. But that premise excludes so many possibilities that are in need of exploration. I cannot accept it without any justification.
So you're saying that you don't deny that there's something rather than nothing because there's no way you can demonstrate that there's something rather than nothing? I must be missing something. What am I missing here?
Close, but makes no sense the way you worded it.
I don't deny that
there's something rather than nothing because there's no way I can demonstrate that
there's not anything rather than something. I cannot demonstrate that realism is wrong, only that it has problems, but all views seem to have problems.
I think I understand this bit, and if my understanding is correct then I'm not disagreeing.
Good if you actually understand. It is a definition, not an assertion. It isn't something that is correct or not, merely a way that I use a word, a way that I define ontology. It is a product of causality the way I worded it, so it can only be meaningful between states in a causal structure such as our universe.
You seem to be saying that for something to 'exist' it must stand out against a background of other things (or to be pedantic, of at least one other thing).
I do realize the Latin origins of the word, but no, that doesn't seem to capture it. Take the definition quite literally. Rain causes tree to grow, and eventually produce an apple. Thus the rain exists relative to the apple. The apple does not exist relative to that (years prior) rainy day since the weather that day is in no way influenced by the apple in question.
Again, this isn't something right or wrong, it's just an example of that alternate definition being put to use. Notice the utter lack of human observer in the example since the definition isn't an anthropocentric one.
so it references objective existence.
I'm not sure what the "it" refers to here
'It' here refers to any usage of 'exists' without specification of the relation. Any such syntax references objective existence, which is why objective existence is so intuitive. Language forces that intuition, but language is not a valid justification of it.
So you seem to be describing "objective existence" as the set of all existing things -- i.e. of all things that "stand out" from a background of all other things.
Yea, pretty much. Presumably we are on the list and the unicorn is not, but hey, it could be the other way around and we'd not be able to tell the difference, unless, once again, one accepts that pesky premise that I keep bringing up, in which case the unicorn must exist because it is horny (a predicate).
This seems to be at variance with the more usual meaning of the word "objective" which stands in contrast to the word "subjective."
Sorry about that. Another word that needs a definition. Not talking about objective vs subjective. I've been talking about objective vs relative. Realism says that something is real, period, not conditional on say a point of view. e.g. Theory of relativity says that velocity and simultaneity are both relative (frame dependent), but proper dimensions and acceleration are both objective (not frame dependent).
"Exists' without relation is an objective use of the term, and with the relation it becomes a relative use of the term.
'The sun exists' (objective wording). 'The sunset in Halifax' is a relative reference since it isn't setting in Zurich.
So you seem to be saying that it is logically possible that there is a complete absence of anything that stands out from everything else.
I can accept that statement. There is no evidence of it being otherwise since the empirical experience would be no different. Some things stand out more than others relative to my point of view, sure, but that's got nothing to do with objective existence. Hence I find far more utility in using a relational definition when using the term.
The weather is nice. That's objectively worded, but the reference is implied: The weather is nice
here and now, but not necessarily elsewhere or here on other days.
Now I would call that state of affairs "nothing at all," which seems consistent with your claim that if a statement has no referent then we aren't making a statement about the existence of anything.
Except if a statement has no referent, we ARE making an objective statement. Your wording there is that we're
not making an objective statement, which is not the case.
especially since the alternative is either that everything exists
You seem to be saying
If nothing stands out, that would be pretty much the same as everything standing out, or the whole 'standing out' business being essentially useless.
[quote... and if some things stand out from everything else and some do not, then we need to account for why those things that stand out are different from those that don't stand out ...[/quote]If we're talking relational here, then the explanation is pretty simple. If we're talking about standing out in an objective sense, then yea, what you said.
... so one needs to examine the assumption that there are things that stand out from the background of everything else. (Is this really an assumption? I mean, isn't it simply the case?
Only in a relational view is it demonstrably the case. In the objective sense, yes, it is an assumption, one you are obviously assuming when asking ' isn't it simply the case?'. It isn't simple.
Not trying to torture you. I started in on this 1) trying to grok your view (still don't know), and 2) trying to point out places you are making unjustified assumptions without knowing it. That has led us down this road, and I must compliment you that you seem to have genuine interest in this exploration. I assure you that I'm not asserting any correctness of any view of mine, but you have partially followed the logic behind these things being not just possible, but lacking in evidence to the contrary. What it is is horribly unintuitive, but I know where the intuitions come from, and most of it is lies, however well intended. I've learned to trust those lies for my pragmatic survival, but not to trust them for search for a self-consistent view.