Try writing a payment gateway that way. 
I’d argue that there’s no such thing as essence, so something only exists when it exists.
Is someone saying that something exists when it doesn’t exist?
Sorry: What something?
Your post quoted someone else, not me, so I’m not sure what “something” you’re referring to.
I see now. You’re talking about my statement “Something can have an essence without even possibly existing.”
Someone holding to the view I’m articulating would respond to you by pointing out that, of course, they don’t agree that “‘Something’ means it is in existence.” In other words, on the view I’m articulating, by saying “something” you don’t imply that the “something” you’re referring to actually exists.
And that sounds right to me. I can be referring to unicorns when I say “something,” yet unicorns don’t exist.
I would say: the word or idea of a unicorn exists in the mind of the person who thought it up. The thought probably came from the idea of seeing a horse or a rhino and wondering if a horse could have a horn what it would look like. Science fiction writers come up with all ideas of what they dream up as how space creatures may look. They are fictional and exist in the mind of the writer and artist.
An idea can have existence but not be a real being even though it is just an idea or thought.
I am not code. While my DNA may have determined that I would be human before I was even conceived, there was no work order for this specific individual put out before me. So if you want to use the program analogy from the other thread, you have to basically be saying that my essence stops at “human being” and isn’t more specific than that, which I don’t agree with.
I will not quibble, MrDibble. […friendly chuckle…] I will save that for my own thread. This particular thread, frankly, is difficult for me to follow. And so it is probably best for all concerned if I simply bow out of it.
MMM, I just couldn’t resist.
First of all, to address the thread topic: not so much because of philosophy or metaphysics as the English language: If something is not yet in existence then by definition it does not exist, so the question as posed is moot.
To quote Monavis: “…Existence was described as: The state of all emerged essences.” This description to me, the layperson, seems less like a description and more like nonsense, again, with respect to modern English this is a non-statement, what does it mean??
At the same time, the thread seems to have evolved into a discussion of existence itself and what it might be, I have the following ideas:
I think this question is really a lot more complicated than most people make it out to be and cannot be reduced to a pretty sounding sentence or neat little package of simple ideas, seriously. I openly admit that a satisfactory definition is beyond me and I suspect it may just be beyond a lot of others who have attempted it (famous scholars and philosophers included).
But let’s take stock: Existence can definitely be divided into:
That which unconditionally exists and
That which conditionally exists (i.e. can cease to exist)
While I’m still in the process of pulling these ideas out of my butt, I currently define them thus:
That which unconditionally exists includes
(1)universal laws of matter and physics and all that good stuff. In the vast vacuum of space, gravitation, the various atomic forces, the rules of acceleration heat transmission, and all those great constants still exist. Just because they are properties of matter does not mean they cease to exist when there is no matter, they always exist.
(2)Any matter or energy that ever existed still exists, although they may have long ago passed out of human or mechanical measurement which is why you can’t summon say…Julius Caesar back from the grave, because good ol’ Jules is still corporeal, but his individual tissues and atoms have simply been horribly scattered, re-arranged, and recombined into various materials.
These things can never be destroyed, or gotten rid of and such, they always, unconditionally exist.
That which conditionally exist, they cannot exist alone but are always built upon those things that unconditionally exist, this is the realm of special temporary configurations like:
The position of all of the vehicles on I95 in America, yesterday at 12:42:01 p.m. yesterday. This was a reality for that fraction of a second, and then ceased to be, with the avalanche of physical changes and chemical changes of state that took place immediately following that instance. Language, the United States (and the concept of its president) are all mere configurations. They are thoughts that exist only as long as there are people to think them. They can become extinct and cease to exist once they are not supported unconditionally.
-Explanation on that last sentence: All people speaking a language die out, but they leave copious writings which are later figured out and put back into use, the language never ceased to exist, since it was transfered to another configuration (whatever physical vessel held it) which had not yet ceased to exist. Note here the difficulty of knowing whether or not certain configurations have really ceased to exist or not.
Configurations can spawn further configurations, which persist even after the original is gone. Again, Julius Caesar has spawned all manner of writing, discussion, movies, secret dark desires, etc. even though big J’s most widely recognised configuration (i.e. a living person) ceased to exist long ago.
Also a caveat, please do not step over the configuration threshold into the realm of possibility, possibilities never “exist” unconditionally. They are perceptions only, once they are perceived, in the vessels of whatever things are capable of perceiving them.
So that people don’t think this is oversimplified, observe the complexity that arises when these forms of existence interact.
An artist takes a block of marble from a quarry and carves a statue from it. Is it a statue? Yes an no. Unconditionally it is a chunk of rock that has been altered in very specific ways by a force, specifically a sculptor. Conditionally, the specific characteristics it has taken on as a result of that force will cause it to be recognised by the sculptor and anyone who shares his perception parameters (most other human beings) as a statue. The dog that will later urinate on it may still see it as just another rock.
The United States exists, yes? Yes, but it exists conditionally. To cause it to cease to exist now and into the future, I would logically need to gather an army, defeat its forces, take over its land and territories, make its government illegitimate and make it’s people forswear any allegiance. There would probably be some messy details regarding becoming recognised internationally as well.
Relatively easy.
To make it cease to have ever existed I would have to to all of the above, and then kill everyone who had ever been aware of the United States, or wait for them to die while destroying every shred of evidence anywhere that such a thing as the United States had ever existed and even then I couldn’t be sure some wasn’t buried or hidden in some form somewhere.
But if I could accomplish this, the United States (or any conditional configuration) would truly cease to exist. Unless of course by some freak coincidence someone were to choose the name for some other political entity to come about later, and even that would be a technicality.
As an aside: Wouldn’t it be more practical to just try and define Existence with respect to perception, individually, rather than in an ultimate sense? Like:
That which we can perceive and have (everything you are, or have ever been aware of).
That which we can perceive and have not (everything you could or may yet become aware of).
That which we cannot perceive but exists or can be conceived (like your cat’s plans to kill you in your sleep).
These three conceptions of existence are inelegant, limited and by no means definitive, but for all purposes of existing as a human being, isn’t it all we need? You should know what you know, know what you don’t or have yet to know, and know what you cannot know. Working logically with these things should provide one with all the tools they will ever need to effectively deal with anything that will ever influence them in any way and to properly ignore everything that won’t or over which they have no control, and isn’t that after all the point of understanding existence?
MMM, I just couldn’t resist.
First of all, to address the thread topic: not so much because of philosophy or metaphysics as the English language: If something is not yet in existence then by definition it does not exist, so the question as posed is moot.
To quote Monavis: “…Existence was described as: The state of all emerged essences.” This description to me, the layperson seems less like a description and more like nonsense, again, with respect to modern English this is a non-statement, what does it mean??
At the same time, the thread seems to have evolved into a discussion of existence itself and what it might be, I have the following ideas:
I think this question is really a lot more complicated than most people make it out to be and cannot be reduced to a pretty sounding sentence or neat little package of simple ideas, seriously. I openly admit that a satisfactory definition is beyond me and I suspect it may just be beyond a lot of others who have attempted it (famous scholars and philosophers included).
But let’s take stock: Existence can definitely be divided into:
That which unconditionally exists and
That which conditionally exists (i.e. can cease to exist)
While I’m still in the process of pulling these ideas out of my butt, I currently define them thus:
That which unconditionally exists includes
(1)universal laws of matter and physics and all that good stuff. In the vast vacuum of space, gravitation, the various atomic forces, the rules of acceleration heat transmission, and all those great constants still exist. Just because they are properties of matter does not mean they cease to exist when there is no matter, they always exist.
(2)Any matter or energy that ever existed still exists, although they may have long ago passed out of human or mechanical measurement which is why you can’t summon say…Julius Caesar back from the grave, because good ol’ Jules is still corporeal, but his individual tissues and atoms have simply been horribly scattered, re-arranged, and recombined into various materials.
These things can never be destroyed, or gotten rid of and such, they always, unconditionally exist.
That which conditionally exist, they cannot exist alone but are always built upon those things that unconditionally exist, this is the realm of special temporary configurations like:
The position of all of the vehicles on I95 in America, yesterday at 12:42:01 p.m. yesterday. This was a reality for that fraction of a second, and then ceased to be, with the avalanche of physical changes and chemical changes of state that took place immediately following that instance. Language, the United States (and the concept of its president) are all mere configurations. They are thoughts that exist only as long as there are people to think them. They can become extinct and cease to exist once they are not supported unconditionally.
-Explanation on that last sentence: All people speaking a language die out, but they leave copious writings which are later figured out and put back into use, the language never ceased to exist, since it was transfered to another configuration (whatever physical vessel held it) which had not yet ceased to exist. Note here the difficulty of knowing whether or not certain configurations have really ceased to exist or not.
Configurations can spawn further configurations, which persist even after the original is gone. Again, Julius Caesar has spawned all manner of writing, discussion, movies, secret dark desires, etc. even though big J’s most widely recognised configuration (i.e. a living person) ceased to exist long ago.
Also a caveat, please do not step over the configuration threshold into the realm of possibility, possibilities never “exist” unconditionally. They are perceptions only, once they are perceived, in the vessels of whatever things are capable of perceiving them.
So that people don’t think this is oversimplified, observe the complexity that arises when these forms of existence interact.
An artist takes a block of marble from a quarry and carves a statue from it. Is it a statue? Yes an no. Unconditionally it is a chunk of rock that has been altered in very specific ways by a force, specifically a sculptor. Conditionally, the specific characteristics it has taken on as a result of that force will cause it to be recognised by the sculptor and anyone who shares his perception parameters (most other human beings) as a statue. The dog that will later urinate on it may still see it as just another rock.
The United States exists, yes? Yes, but it exists conditionally. To cause it to cease to exist now and into the future, I would logically need to gather an army, defeat its forces, take over its land and territories, make its government illegitimate and make it’s people forswear any allegiance. There would probably be some messy details regarding becoming recognised internationally as well.
Relatively easy.
To make it cease to have ever existed I would have to to all of the above, and then kill everyone who had ever been aware of the United States, or wait for them to die while destroying every shred of evidence anywhere that such a thing as the United States had ever existed and even then I couldn’t be sure some wasn’t buried or hidden in some form somewhere.
But if I could accomplish this, the United States (or any conditional configuration) would truly cease to exist. Unless of course by some freak coincidence someone were to choose the name for some other political entity to come about later, and even that would be a technicality.
As an aside: Wouldn’t it be more practical to just try and define Existence with respect to perception, individually, rather than in an ultimate sense? Like:
That which we can perceive and have (everything you are, or have ever been aware of).
That which we can perceive and have not (everything you could or may yet become aware of).
That which we cannot perceive but exists or can be conceived (like your cat’s plans to kill you in your sleep).
These three conceptions of existence are inelegant, limited and by no means definitive, but for all purposes of existing as a human being, isn’t it all we need? You should know what you know, know what you don’t or have yet to know, and know what you cannot know. Working logically with these things should provide one with all the tools they will ever need to effectively deal with anything that will ever influence them in any way and to properly ignore everything that won’t or over which they have no control, and isn’t that after all the point of understanding existence?
MMM, I just couldn’t resist.
First of all, to address the thread topic: not so much because of philosophy or metaphysics as the English language: If something is not yet in existence then by definition it does not exist, so the question as posed is moot.
To quote Monavis: “…Existence was described as: The state of all emerged essences.” This description to me, the layperson seems less like a description and more like nonsense, again, with respect to modern English this is a non-statement, what does it mean??
At the same time, the thread seems to have evolved into a discussion of existence itself and what it might be, I have the following ideas:
I think this question is really a lot more complicated than most people make it out to be and cannot be reduced to a pretty sounding sentence or neat little package of simple ideas, seriously. I openly admit that a satisfactory definition is beyond me and I suspect it may just be beyond a lot of others who have attempted it (famous scholars and philosophers included).
But let’s take stock: Existence can definitely be divided into:
That which unconditionally exists and
That which conditionally exists (i.e. can cease to exist)
While I’m still in the process of pulling these ideas out of my butt, I currently define them thus:
That which unconditionally exists includes
(1)universal laws of matter and physics and all that good stuff. In the vast vacuum of space, gravitation, the various atomic forces, the rules of acceleration heat transmission, and all those great constants still exist. Just because they are properties of matter does not mean they cease to exist when there is no matter, they always exist.
(2)Any matter or energy that ever existed still exists, although they may have long ago passed out of human or mechanical measurement which is why you can’t summon say…Julius Caesar back from the grave, because good ol’ Jules is still corporeal, but his individual tissues and atoms have simply been horribly scattered, re-arranged, and recombined into various materials.
These things can never be destroyed, or gotten rid of and such, they always, unconditionally exist.
That which conditionally exist, they cannot exist alone but are always built upon those things that unconditionally exist, this is the realm of special temporary configurations like:
The position of all of the vehicles on I95 in America, yesterday at 12:42:01 p.m. yesterday. This was a reality for that fraction of a second, and then ceased to be, with the avalanche of physical changes and chemical changes of state that took place immediately following that instance. Language, the United States (and the concept of its president) are all mere configurations. They are thoughts that exist only as long as there are people to think them. They can become extinct and cease to exist once they are not supported unconditionally.
-Explanation on that last sentence: All people speaking a language die out, but they leave copious writings which are later figured out and put back into use, the language never ceased to exist, since it was transfered to another configuration (whatever physical vessel held it) which had not yet ceased to exist. Note here the difficulty of knowing whether or not certain configurations have really ceased to exist or not.
Configurations can spawn further configurations, which persist even after the original is gone. Again, Julius Caesar has spawned all manner of writing, discussion, movies, secret dark desires, etc. even though big J’s most widely recognised configuration (i.e. a living person) ceased to exist long ago.
Also a caveat, please do not step over the configuration threshold into the realm of possibility, possibilities never “exist” unconditionally. They are perceptions only, once they are perceived, in the vessels of whatever things are capable of perceiving them.
So that people don’t think this is oversimplified, observe the complexity that arises when these forms of existence interact.
An artist takes a block of marble from a quarry and carves a statue from it. Is it a statue? Yes an no. Unconditionally it is a chunk of rock that has been altered in very specific ways by a force, specifically a sculptor. Conditionally, the specific characteristics it has taken on as a result of that force will cause it to be recognised by the sculptor and anyone who shares his perception parameters (most other human beings) as a statue. The dog that will later urinate on it may still see it as just another rock.
The United States exists, yes? Yes, but it exists conditionally. To cause it to cease to exist now and into the future, I would logically need to gather an army, defeat its forces, take over its land and territories, make its government illegitimate and make it’s people forswear any allegiance. There would probably be some messy details regarding becoming recognised internationally as well.
Relatively easy.
To make it cease to have ever existed I would have to to all of the above, and then kill everyone who had ever been aware of the United States, or wait for them to die while destroying every shred of evidence anywhere that such a thing as the United States had ever existed and even then I couldn’t be sure some wasn’t buried or hidden in some form somewhere.
But if I could accomplish this, the United States (or any conditional configuration) would truly cease to exist. Unless of course by some freak coincidence someone were to choose the name for some other political entity to come about later, and even that would be a technicality.
As an aside: Wouldn’t it be more practical to just try and define Existence with respect to perception, individually, rather than in an ultimate sense? Like:
That which we can perceive and have (everything you are, or have ever been aware of).
That which we can perceive and have not (everything you could or may yet become aware of).
That which we cannot perceive but exists or can be conceived (like your cat’s plans to kill you in your sleep).
These three conceptions of existence are inelegant, limited and by no means definitive, but for all purposes of existing as a human being, isn’t it all we need? You should know what you know, know what you don’t or have yet to know, and know what you cannot know. Working logically with these things should provide one with all the tools they will ever need to effectively deal with anything that will ever influence them in any way and to properly ignore everything that won’t or over which they have no control, and isn’t that after all the point of understanding existence?
apologies for inconveniencing anyone, above post should read:
(1)That which conditionally exists includes things which cannot…
(2)To make it [the U.S.] permanently cease to exist, and for all intents and purposes never have existed…
I could hardly proofread this post in 5 minutes (the time limit for editing) much less edit it fully in that time.