Existence

[Veritas]

Why is there something as opposed to nothing?

Is this a meaningless question and if so why?

[Robert J. Kolker]

Why is there something as opposed to nothing?

Is this a meaningless question and if so why?

The question presuppose that something exists and it also presuppose the existence of something to provided the reason for the existence of something. It is not a very good question because it cannot be answered. I have a similar question:

Why is a crooked letter?

Bob Kolker

[LaszloWalrus]

Why is there something as opposed to nothing?

Is this a meaningless question and if so why?

There just is. One explains things in terms of existence.

[Veritas]

The question presuppose that something exists and it also presuppose the existence of something to provided the reason for the existence of something. It is not a very good question because it cannot be answered. I have a similar question:

Why is a crooked letter?

Bob Kolker

So then would't the answer then just be that the reason why there is something as opposed to nothing is because it can't be any other way?

[Tenure]

Yes. Because there can't 'be' nothing - 'to be' is a word we use to describe things. It's a meaningless question, because 'nothing' has no referents in reality, except as a sub-concept of 'something'; or when I asked, "What do you think?" "Ahhh... I got nothing."

Edited October 25, 2007 by Tenure

[KevinD]

Why is there something as opposed to nothing?

Because "nothing" does not exist.

That's how come we don't have any of it.

[musenji]

Right..from a recent discussion I had:

Some philosophers would argue that the idea of "is not" (the number zero!) is a metaphysical one--that "zero" actually corresponds with a kind of entity. But "is not" doesn't exist except as an idea. The absence of an entity is not an entity.

The reason zero can't be a metaphysical concept is that you have to specify a particular KIND of entity before you can say "zero"--before you can say something like, "A is not here: the amount of A here is zero."

[MikeJoyous]

Beautifully put, Musenji:)

best wishes,

Mike Rael, MS

Right..from a recent discussion I had:

Some philosophers would argue that the idea of "is not" (the number zero!) is a metaphysical one--that "zero" actually corresponds with a kind of entity. But "is not" doesn't exist except as an idea. The absence of an entity is not an entity.

The reason zero can't be a metaphysical concept is that you have to specify a particular KIND of entity before you can say "zero"--before you can say something like, "A is not here: the amount of A here is zero."

[MajorTom]

I find this topic to be of particular interest because I just started P:WNI, and I was trying to explain objectivist metaphysics and epistomology to my girlfriend (who is also studying Objectivism, but was playing Devil's advocate). It went something like this:

I: Objectivist metaphysics dictate that existance exists, and Objectivist epistomology dictates that things are what they are, so reason can be used to obtain knowledge. These are axioms.

She: How do you know that existance exists?

I: One has to exist in order ask or answer that question.

She: Really? How do you know that? What if what you think is existence is all in your head?

I: Well, I guess I don't know. I suppose Rand gave existence the benefit of the doubt. After all, there isn't exactly evidence to the contrary.

Come to think of it... In regards to her last point, I suppose even if all reality were in my head (kind of like a Matrix scenerio) I would still have to treat that "existence" as being existent. Therefore, one has to believe that existence exists.

The problem I have is that existence seems like a really big assumption, which the rest of Objectivism was founded upon. Is it, or is there some fundemental proof of existence outside of my body that I have missed in study of Objectivism?

[Edit: Sp]

Edited April 18, 2009 by MajorTom

[fountainhead777]

The basic learning elements of your mind on which you discern reality for the first time and any time after is basically a feedback recall loop. You receive sensory information and record it, then you make predictions based on what you know and test it against continuing sensory information.

Now if reality did not exist none of this would work and we would be the equivalent of blind, deaf, sensory-deprived people with no ability to manage effectively. Since after maturing you can make effective predictions on the basis of reality ans this is not an isolated occurrence I would say reality exists.

There's a neurological researcher named Jeff Hawkins who has interesting theories on the functioning of the mind. He is even applying these theories to programs to identify objects with programs much like we do.

[Grames]

I find this topic to be of particular interest because I just started P:WNI, and I was trying to explain objectivist metaphysics and epistomology to my girlfriend (who is also studying Objectivism, but was playing Devil's advocate). It went something like this:

I: Objectivist metaphysics dictate that existance exists, and Objectivist epistomology dictates that things are what they are, so reason can be used to obtain knowledge. These are axioms.

She: How do you know that existance exists?

I: One has to exist in order ask or answer that question.

She: Really? How do you know that? What if what you think is existence is all in your head?

I: Well, I guess I don't know. I suppose Rand gave existence the benefit of the doubt. After all, there isn't exactly evidence to the contrary.

Come to think of it... In regards to her last point, I suppose even if all reality were in my head (kind of like a Matrix scenerio) I would still have to treat that "existence" as being existent. Therefore, one has to believe that existence exists.

The problem I have is that existence seems like a really big assumption, which the rest of Objectivism was founded upon. Is it, or is there some fundemental proof of existence outside of my body that I have missed in study of Objectivism?

[Edit: Sp]

There is no proof of existence. Proof assumes logic, evidence, identity and existence. Existence is validated simply by experiencing it via the senses.

The way to respond to this is to attack the premises of the question. Where does the idea of a "head" come from? Where does the idea of an illusion come come from? An illusion so complete as to be identical with reality in every way is no longer an illusion, because an illusion is supposed to be somehow different than what actually is. The very idea of illusion assumes existence and appearance are real and distinguishable. Illusion without existence is a stolen concept.

[MajorTom]

There is no proof of existence. Proof assumes logic, evidence, identity and existence. Existence is validated simply by experiencing it via the senses.

The way to respond to this is to attack the premises of the question. Where does the idea of a "head" come from? Where does the idea of an illusion come come from? An illusion so complete as to be identical with reality in every way is no longer an illusion, because an illusion is supposed to be somehow different than what actually is. The very idea of illusion assumes existence and appearance are real and distinguishable. Illusion without existence is a stolen concept.

I understand now that existence cannot be proven (hence the reason Ayn Rand considered the Primacy of Existence to be an axiom). I do thank you for providing a clearer explanation of that.

As for the Matrix scenario (for those of you not familiar with the movie, the idea is that human beings are forced to exist in vats of gel while illusions of life as they know it are fed into their minds (this set of illusions is called the Matrix)), I suppose that for the humans stuck in the vats, all they know is the Matrix, therefore it is for them existence.

Because Objectivism is a "Philosophy for Living on Earth," I suppose that for the slaves of the Matrix, it would be a "Philosophy for Living in the Matrix." It is all they ever know, therefore it is to them, existence.

Notice that the Matrix is not "an illusion so complete as to be identical reality in every way," but rather it is truly an illusion. It creates an alternate reality. For those trapped in it, it is existence.

My point is that existance must exist, but the assumption actually made by Rand is that "this is existance," no?

[Grames]

I understand now that existence cannot be proven (hence the reason Ayn Rand considered the Primacy of Existence to be an axiom). I do thank you for providing a clearer explanation of that.

As for the Matrix scenario (for those of you not familiar with the movie, the idea is that human beings are forced to exist in vats of gel while illusions of life as they know it are fed into their minds (this set of illusions is called the Matrix)), I suppose that for the humans stuck in the vats, all they know is the Matrix, therefore it is for them existence.

Because Objectivism is a "Philosophy for Living on Earth," I suppose that for the slaves of the Matrix, it would be a "Philosophy for Living in the Matrix." It is all they ever know, therefore it is to them, existence.

Notice that the Matrix is not "an illusion so complete as to be identical reality in every way," but rather it is truly an illusion. It creates an alternate reality. For those trapped in it, it is existence.

My point is that existance must exist, but the assumption actually made by Rand is that "this is existance," no?

It is a contextual certainty. Not just an assumption, an inescapable conclusion. Everything points to it, nothing contradicts it. To continue to entertain the notion that existence is an illusion in the absence of any evidence is to accept the arbitrary. Even in The Matrix there were "deja vu"s and glitches, superhuman agents and rebels, all evidence that something was wonky.

[MajorTom]

It is a contextual certainty. Not just an assumption, an inescapable conclusion. Everything points to it, nothing contradicts it. To continue to entertain the notion that existence is an illusion in the absence of any evidence is to accept the arbitrary. Even in The Matrix there were "deja vu"s and glitches, superhuman agents and rebels, all evidence that something was wonky.

Thanks for your clarification. Having read more on metaphysics, I think I understand more about existance.

[FrolicsomeQuipster]

Notice that the Matrix is not "an illusion so complete as to be identical reality in every way," but rather it is truly an illusion. It creates an alternate reality. For those trapped in it, it is existence.

My point is that existance must exist, but the assumption actually made by Rand is that "this is existance," no?

Notice also that when they died in the matrix they died for real.

And I think it can be assumed that people who acted healthy in it also lived longer (witch would otherwise have been a major quirk).

The ''programs'' even admitted that people wouldn't be fooled by an earlier attempt to create a ''perfect world''.

The matrix was a part of reality witch also had a definite identity, they all saw the same thing some just saw more of it.