Someone left the gates unlocked again.
All of which is irrelevant. The singularity was (supposedly) all that existed. There was nothing to interact with it. Did that mean that it did not exist.
No, it doesn’t. You were asking me to distinguish between a situation where only one thing existed (not interacting with anything), and where nothing existed. It’s the difference between one and zero. It’s not shaky epistomology, by any means; it’s just plain common sense.
And you have not given any reason why interaction is necessary for existence. Why are you so quick to foist the burden of proof elsewhere.
Personally, I think it’s commonsensical to say that existence is not contingent on interacting with other entities. For the sake of argument though, let’s assume that this is not self-evident. Why should we accept the claim that interaction is necesary for existence? It seems to me that such a claim deserves to be substantiated at least as much as mine does.
And saying “Interaction is everything” just doesn’t cut it.
What in the world is that supposed to mean? I see no reason to accept take that claim at its face value.
I wonder where he copied that from. The source must be at least 30 - 40 years old, since it seems to imply that steady state is still a going concern.
I think the more useful view is that “interaction is necessary for evidence of existence”. Fundamentally (and please correct me if I’m wrong, Voyager), the argument is that there’s no operational difference between a completely non-interactive entity and a non-existent entity.
And that, I would agree with. After all, if there is nothing to interact with, then there is nothing to perceive any evidence of its interaction.
However, this is a far cry from AHunter3’s grandiose claim that the lack of interaction equivalently means that something does not exist.
It’s not that far a stretch, really, since one could easily state that a complete lack of interaction means that something might as well not exist. Thus, to any and all observers, a completely non-interactive entity is functionally equivalent to a non-existent one.
If a tree falls in a forest, and nobody is there to hear it, does the tree cease to exist?
Functionally equivalent to non-existent does not equate to non-existent. For one thing, if the currently non-observable object exists, then perhaps it was observable previously, and perhaps it might become observable again later. You can’t say the same thing of something that doesn’t exist at all.
Existence is not contingent on observability. Observability is contingent on existence. (Putting aside flights of fancy, anyway.)
You’re confusing observability with interaction. A tree falling in a forest is already interacting with the universe–gravity, for one obvious case.
In which case it has already interacted with the universe. Again, I’m not saying “non-observable” is functionally equivalent to nonexistent; I’m saying “non-interactive” is functionally equivalent to nonexistent. If something currently non-interactive was previously interactive, there should still remain some sort of trace of its past interaction.
Not what was being argued.
Please substitute the word ‘interaction’ for ‘observable’ in my prior post, since clearly if you are observed you are interacting with the observer. (I would have thought this went without saying.)
Metaphor, my son. Trying to make a point with humor. Suffice to say in the classic tree-noise example, the only interaction considered to count is the sound that may or may not be being heard.
Note also that all interactions are delayed, since everything from gravity on down travels no faster than the speed of light. So, by your position, the tree must make its sound while not existing, and then when the sound reaches a listener/interactee, the tree suddenly springs into existence, even though it’s no longer doing any interacting at the present time. Does this seem plausible to you?
Also, what makes the last ‘interactor’ so magic? Ten interactors: it exists. five interactors: it exists. Two interactors: it exists. One interactor: it still exists. The last interactor ceases: it vanishes? Why? What mysterious power does the final interactor have, such that if it ceases contact the other thing ceases to exist? Why didn’t any of the other interactors’ leaving have any effect?
So you’re saying that nothing may ever cease to exist? What an…odd perspective. But suffice to say, you have not covered the possibility of the object interacting with something in the future. The object could be merely biding its time before joining the game. Does this object exist, as it makes plans to itself about its pending arrival?
Fine: “Existence is not contingent on interaction. Interaction is contingent on existence. (Putting aside flights of fancy, anyway.)” Happy now?
Hmm, here’s a question: can any existent object avoid interacting with itself? (I say no, if you’re counting things like gravity as interacting with itself. Certainly nothing with at least two atoms is failing to interact with itself.) If not, then your position collapses into the conventional view, where the existence of things is not dependent on other things fiddling with them.
I think God is the vacuum of space. The great god of matter is nothingness.
http://thisibelieve.org/dsp_ShowEssay.php?topessays=25&uid=34 A cvelebrity take on atheism. It is a good thought.
I google’d ““Because we choose a linear historical frame of reference for our academic pursuits”” and only turned up one link, here
Thank you, you said it better than I did.
People laugh about Bill Clinton and “it depends on what your definition is ‘is’ is”; the basic meaning of “to exist” would seem to be non-problematic.
But in the absence of interaction of any sort, you end up with a background-and-foreground problem.
—The Book, 1972
I know you’ve seen the famous “optical illusion” which can be interpreted as two faces or a lampshade? Each of the two alternative “images” is dependent on the existence of the other as a backdrop.
In my original statement, I did not quite say that in order for something to exist, there must be an interaction. What I specifically stated was that in order for something to be said to exist, there must be an interaction.
It’s not just observation, it’s conceptualization. We cannot observe any galaxies lying a couple septuagintillion light years from us in the general direction of Scorpio because light has only had 12-15 billion years’ opportunity to travel… but we can imagine those galaxies interacting with each other. But a true singularity? Nope. If you’re visualizing a stone in empty space, you are necessarily imagining its parts in relationship to each other (ridges and furrows, or molecules) or else imagining its looks (light bouncing off its orange-brown surface). The proposition that a single thing can exist is isolation is quite simply a meaningless proposition. In order to entertain it, we have to cheat, to introduce something that comprises an interaction.
But we aren’t limiting “interaction” to “interaction with a single observer”, a distinction that appears completely lost on you in your following replies.
Why is the sound the only interaction that’s allowed to “count”? We’re not limiting interaction to a particular observer.
Also, I’m not sure your condescension is warranted here.
No, because you’re making large leaps of logic based upon a premise I’m not trying to claim. Once you make a statement such as “A tree falls”, you’ve already specified an interactive state with the physical universe, whether or not an observer is present. A tree that doesn’t interact with the physical universe cannot fall in any meaningful sense.
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. You still seem to be clinging to some kind of false equivalency between “interaction” and “observation”.
Another bizarre leap of logic. Interaction with the physical universe leaves traces; that’s all I’m saying. How you get to “nothing may ever cease to exist” is a mystery.
-
Until and unless this object “chooses” to do so, for all practical purposes it might as well not exist; I will refine the prior statement thus: “From the perspective of all other entities, a completely non-interactive entity is functionally equivalent to a non-existent one, while it remains in such a state.”
-
How can a non-interactive entity plan to become interactive with a physical universe it cannot perceive? Remember, perception is a form of interaction.
You also seem to have lost the distinction between “equivalent” and “functionally equivalent”. As I said before, it’s trivial to postulate an infinite number of completely non-interactive entities, any number of which may “really” exist, but for all practical purposes, what difference does it make whether they exist or not?
As long as we are talking about actual existence, then a specific object either exists or it doesn’t; the object cannot be existent for one interactor and non-existent for another. So, if a single observer is all that is necessary to establish the actual existence of an object, then additional interactors add nothing, since actual existence had already been established.
If you are talking only about “functionally equivalent to existent”, then we are not talking about the same thing. I have very little (but not quite nothing) to say about “functionally equivalent to existent”, and will get to it anon.
Okay, this little exchange started because I paraphrased the classic philosophical question, which is about precisely the topic we are currently discussing. Valid answers to “If a tree false in a forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound” is not “Sure, the other trees hear it.” Sorry, no. This is a sort of ‘toy problem’, where the focus is on the single interaction of tree and (absent) listener. No other interactions are to be considered for the sake of the problem.
I shouldn’t have had to explain that.
No form of the word “observation” occurs in the portion of my post to which this is a response, so I don’t know what you could possibly be referring to.
The text you’re not understanding is meant to underscore the disjoint between the single property of an object’s existence, and the fact you’re trying to make that single property dependent on the multiple varying possible interactors. In doing this, you make whichever interactor happens to be first have the special property of validating the object’s existence, despite the fact that there is nothing special about one interactor over another.
Note, again, that I’m not talking about “functionally equivalent to existent”. If you think you are, use the term “functionally equivalent to existent”; don’t abbreviate it to “existent” as though they mean the same thing.
If ‘has left traces’ is the same as ‘currently existing’ in your lexicon, you are using bizarre definitions which certainly don’t align with my understanding of the meaning of the terms.
And I got to “nothing may ever cease to exist” since you seemed and seem to be saying that the mere fact that the object once left traces ensures it continued existence. If this is the case, then everything that ever existed must still exist, since its traces remain. Thus, nothing may ever cease to exist. (By your bizarre definitions anyway.)
This statement is not about the object’s actual existence, and so I have very little beef with it. The beef I do have I will get to anon.
It might have special knowledge, or an unfounded assumption about what it will interact with. Or it might just be thinking generally, like “Once I get out of this space-time pocket, I’m going to destroy the first thing I see.”
But really, this is beside the point; a distraction. Answer the question: does the object actually exist during its pre-interaction deliberations, or not? Or were you just talking about “functionally equivalent to existence” again without mentioning it?
I seem not to have been able to read that distinction into text where you meant one term and said the other, no. I am an admittedly poor mindreader.
And your closing question brings me to my caveat about percieved existence: the practical difference exists if at some point in the future the thing is going to start interacting with you. This sort of thing is why people pack umbrellas on sunny day; no rainstorm currently is interacting with them, but such an interaction may occur in the future. This sort of ‘planning for the unknown’ is a common human behavior, and thus, non-currently-interacting objects do make a difference.
Unless you’d like to move the goalpost to only refer to objects that never have and never ever will interact, in which case, you will have sufficiently altered the topic of discussion that I will have nothing more to say on the matter.
My very first post in this exchange contained the phrase “functionally equivalent”, as follows:
(bolding added)
I thought it was pretty damn clear that I was “talking only about ‘functionally equivalent’ to nonexistent”. I note that the phrase “functionally equivalent” also occurs regularly in my first reply to you. I reiterated the distinction I was making between “equivalent” and “functionally equivalent” in my second reply. How much clearer can I make myself?
We’re clearly not talking about the same thing.
Point out where I have done this. First of all, I have been talking about non-interaction and functional equivalence to non-existence. Secondly, I have been consistent in my use of “functional equivalence”.
Given that I have deliberately used the phrase “functionally equivalent” in every single goddamn post I’ve made in this exchange, you’re a pretty poor text reader too.
I will reiterate the refined version of my first post: “From the perspective of all other entities, a completely non-interactive entity is functionally equivalent to a non-existent one, while it remains in such a state.”
Do note once again the phrase “functionally equivalent” above, since you seem to have missed it on multiple previous occasions.
I will concede that “completely non-interactive” leaves some ambiguity as to whether this implies the entity in question has ever or will ever interact, but I reject the assertion that this constitutes “altering the topic of discussion” in a significant fashion.
Ah, okay, I see what’s going on here. I was still in the mindset of the exchange between AHunter3 and JThunder which was about actual existence, and I had that discussion at the forefront of my mind when reacting to your posts. I had not realized that your initial post was the point at which you shifted to the much-more-defensible topic of functionally-equivalent-to-not-existing, from the starting hijack of “it takes a second interactor for an object to exist”; after that you didn’t shift position. I mistaken in thinking you had apologise for the offense I clearly gave in misinterpreting your posts.
Other than the caveat of potential future interaction, I don’t think much else of relevence to your position can be pulled out of my previous posts to you.
Here’s a question: Do you entertain the possibility of one-way interaction? Not to bring up the tree again, but if it makes a sound, and the listener hears it, would you say that the listener has ‘interacted’ with the tree, even if the tree has no possible way of knowing that the noise it made was heard? (Presumably we can agree that the tree has interacted with the listener.)
If interactions may be one-way, then that opens up the possibility of an ‘observer god’, who is quetly sitting in a disjoint dimension and taking notes on all the things that he’s planning on punishing us for.