StrictlyLogical

Much that you do in life might "make sense", but would it "make sense" to use up 90% of your time and energy making sure every single one of those little things you do is the absolute most optimal and correct thing to do.. up to a 99.8% margin of error... Being literally crippled with thought and living only 10% of your life... I would suggest, does not "make sense". Trusting your intuition to know when you need to really need to engage in serious rational thought about what you are doing, how to make a choice, how you are going about something, I would suggest "makes sense" i

First, reason is not the "source" of knowledge. It is a process by which some kinds of knowledge can be gained in tandem with other processes, memory, perception etc. Reason also can be used to validate purported knowledge, memory, experience, intuition. Reason can be also used to help guide or inform choices on the basis of perception, held knowledge, memory, experience, intuition, feeling etc. Disregarding reason in the moment and jumping off a cliff in response to a solitary maladaptive impulse would be catastrophic. But not only reason works to dissuade one from a singl

Coincidentally though, this reminds me of something one would use to show a particular proposition for a moral imperative is disqualified according to Kant... I wonder if there is some remote connection?

I feel that somehow it is possible that philosophers (professional or not) may believe the same thing about reality while perhaps using different language and attaching different importance to the namings, associations, meanings, and intuitions asssociated therewith. It may be that, insofar as it corresponds with metaphysical reality, my saying: if some aspect of the past is truly forgotten and not present in the now, it simply no longer exists in any of the things in existence although it once may have... is not so different from your saying: if some aspect of the

So existence includes the present and the past, hence facts about the past forgotten in the present still exist in the existence which is the past. The past which still exists as past existence is to be distinguished from the present which exists as present existence. I think I understand the general idea. I assume you have fixed upon it because you found the alternatives to be more problematic. I wonder what phenomena or observations help one lean one way or another.

Facts now exist in the past times of the physical universe. This is not a trivial thing to rigorously conceive of. Especially for me. To see how you see the universe, I am not certain if I need to chew on what "Fact" is, or what "now" means. I am reluctant to address "exist" (for now) as I surely would end up engaging in circular argumentation. EDIT: After floundering as below, I think I simply do not know what your conception of "Fact" is and where facts are manifest if not in the current physical universe. Do they exists in something like a plato

If not in traces of the natural material universe, nor in any memory of the unthinking whirling cosmos, nor in any mortal mind, where do such “facts” exist, a billion years from now?

Sorry i forgot to put this in my last post. I really am interested in your thinking here.

Thank you for adding to this. Would you say that any fact of anything that happened or existed in the past, now lives on in the form of causal traces or repercussions of that past? If so then would it be correct to characterize a past potential which never actualized as traceable in the current configuration of existence as having once been a potential? In a sense there is memory of that having once been a potential. Is it proper to distinguish between this memory of the potential and the potential itself?

Life can fully exist now, the state of your living for example. When you die, your life goes out of existence. When all that is required for you to continue to live is no longer present, life ceases. This is fundamental. It would be non sensical for us to conclude that, your life’s having “fully existed” implies therefore that it must “always be one of the existents of existence”. It is not so, no matter how much we all wish it were true. Using both Occam and Rand’s razors, is it not simple to conclude that potentials may fully exist when they do exist, when all that is required f

I have come to be of the mind that communication is for understanding. That said I am not of the mind that somehow everyone must understand each other and hence I understand your disinterest in going further... but so you know... I am/was interested in understanding what you think, and why. I’m sorry you don’t wish to share anymore, however, thank you for sharing as much as you have.

What distinguishes such an existent from something purely imagined (as a thought) in the mind? If it currently exists out there ... what can you say about its existence now other than it was/is/will be a potential, and it is nonactual? In other words, what distinguishes between nonactual existents and non existents? (for that matter what makes some existents actual and others non actual)

How do you distinguish between a first material situation (configuration function space time) which exists (in reality) and a second material situation which potentially could exist (and perhaps will in future) but which does not (yet) exist, and in what sense does the potential exist (as ... what?) while the first material situation actually exists and the second does not?

Suppose: Every material "entity" has associated with it at least one position in space-time, i.e. something of it must somewhere be and at some time. Suppose: Where and when (space x and time t) are are attributes of entities and relative attributes, their consequences on reality are real and independent of an observer's state of mind. Suppose: Any entity, at least in its relevant part Q of which it is somewhere (x) and at some time (t), can be described as Q(x,t). Claim: Where and when, as such, (call them X and T) do not themselves po

When your 12" cube is empty, none of the particles of reality which exist have attributes i.e. coordinates in space, which coincide with the innermost space of the 12" cube. This does not, of course, in any way contradict with the fact that in times previous, many particles possessed such physical coordinates. Nor does it contradict the fact that presently, when empty, particles, systems, and energy outside possess the potential to cause, over time, some particles to again possess coordinates coinciding with the interior of the 12". Stating that the cube is empty, in fact means, of t