False statement: "it does not exist"
| If it can be interpreted, it exists. Therefore, everything exists. |
Paradox. If everything exists, then things that don't exist also exist. That's enough for me to interpret your definition as not practical or useful.
| cire wrote: |
|---|
| Paradox. If everything exists, then things that don't exist also exist. That's enough for me to interpret your definition as not practical or useful. |
| If it can be interpreted, it exists. Therefore, everything exists. |
You just interpreted it, so yes.
Also, @Disch could you tell me a better word to use than `exist`? I know it's a bad word to use for what I am trying to say, but it was the closest. I can't think of a better word.
Also, @Disch could you tell me a better word to use than `exist`? I know it's a bad word to use for what I am trying to say, but it was the closest. I can't think of a better word.
Last edited on
And what will it contain?
If everything exist then this set cannot contain anything (because it is exist and therefore cannot be in this set) so non-empty set cannot exist which contradict existence of everything!
If everything exist then this set cannot contain anything (because it is exist and therefore cannot be in this set) so non-empty set cannot exist which contradict existence of everything!
| L B wrote: |
|---|
| could you tell me a better word to use than `exist`? |
"nouns"?
A noun generally is a person, place, thing, or idea. So yeah it sounds to me like you are just describing nouns.
It's possible there is no better word for describing it, because such a word would be utterly pointless. What's the value in using an adjective that is so vague that it can be used to describe literally anything?
Here in the multiverse thing where everything exists can there be an all powerful god that is the only one because everything exists right? so can there be an infinite amount of all powerful gods that are the only one?
maybe I should ask a christian if god can create a god morepowerful than himself
maybe I should ask a christian if god can create a god morepowerful than himself
@Disch: I don't know, I was trying to prove to my friend that the universe existed because if it didn't then our definition of existence was wrong. Somehow I tangent-lined away from that original goal.
@devonnrevenge: Check out Zeno's Paradoxes - can Od create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it? Can God make a maze so confusing that he gets lost in it? My parents responded that God can choose to lessen his powers (it was a school assignment to ask them).
@devonnrevenge: Check out Zeno's Paradoxes - can Od create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it? Can God make a maze so confusing that he gets lost in it? My parents responded that God can choose to lessen his powers (it was a school assignment to ask them).
Last edited on
I think that saying anything does or does not exist supposes too much; specifically, that the world you experience and the world that "exists" are the same thing. I don't think you should assume that. You only experience the world through your perception, so naturally things may exist that you cannot perceive, and you may perceive things that do not exist. I don't think any statement that involves what "exists" and what "is" can be judged to be true or false outside of the experience of some subject or other.
@devonrevenge
Paintings are lesser than games because the latter unite Apollonian and Dionysian elements.
@MiiNiPaa
If the set of things that do not exist is empty, then it does not exist; if it doesn't exist then it contains itself, so it exists. But if it exists, then it cannot be contained by the set of things that don't exist, so it is empty, so it does not exist, etc. ad infinitum.
This reminds me of Russell's paradox: is the set of all sets that are members of themselves a member of itself?
@devonrevenge
Paintings are lesser than games because the latter unite Apollonian and Dionysian elements.
@MiiNiPaa
If the set of things that do not exist is empty, then it does not exist; if it doesn't exist then it contains itself, so it exists. But if it exists, then it cannot be contained by the set of things that don't exist, so it is empty, so it does not exist, etc. ad infinitum.
This reminds me of Russell's paradox: is the set of all sets that are members of themselves a member of itself?
Last edited on
| Disch wrote: |
|---|
| Unicorns. |
Unicorns exists in many games, movies, books, etc. What if the world we perceive as reality, is only a fabricated environment like a game that other beings are playing with. the digital unicorns don't know they are digital unicorns, so how would we know we are anymore real then they are? However, we all know we exists, therefore, those unicorns exists too.
@L B
"Is reality real?" is not such a profound question. In fact it's not even a question worth answering.
Unless you're being accused of some kind of delusional psychosis... or unless you're some kind of neurology or psychology student... you should never have to answer it.
You (or your friend?) seem to be looking for deeper meaning in places where there isn't one. My suggestion is to tell your friend "who cares" and then go do something fun with your life instead of wasting your time / energy on this nonsense. =P
"Is reality real?" is not such a profound question. In fact it's not even a question worth answering.
Unless you're being accused of some kind of delusional psychosis... or unless you're some kind of neurology or psychology student... you should never have to answer it.
You (or your friend?) seem to be looking for deeper meaning in places where there isn't one. My suggestion is to tell your friend "who cares" and then go do something fun with your life instead of wasting your time / energy on this nonsense. =P
| Oria wrote: |
|---|
| What if the world we perceive as reality, is only a fabricated environment like a game that other beings are playing with. |
I really hate this "Matrix" crap.
With what we know about physics and the universe, this is all but completely impossible.
And even if it were true... what difference would it make? If we cannot perceive the other beings, nor see nor influence their actions... for all purposes they may as well not exist.
What if my right foot actually transforms into a raygun when I'm sleeping and burns a hole in the wall? Then immediately after my left foot transforms into a wall-repair gun and restores it to its original form? But this only happens when no one else is around, nobody has ever seen it happen, and I am unconscious so I never see it either.
That question makes as much sense / is as profound / is just as likely as the question you guys are asking. It's really easy to make up ridiculous questions and act as if they're so deep... but really they're not. They're just absurd and meaningless.
| Oria wrote: |
|---|
| the digital unicorns don't know they are digital unicorns, so how would we know we are anymore real then they are? However, we all know we exists, therefore, those unicorns exists too. |
This is the dumbest thing I've heard in a while. I was going to respond to it, but I'd rather not waste my time. If you want to compare your existence to that of a digital unicorn's, go right ahead.
| Oria wrote: |
|---|
| Ignorance is bliss? |
Says the guy who thinks he is no more real than a digital unicorn. Haw.
| chrisname wrote: |
|---|
| I'm offended by the implication that metaphysical time-wasting isn't fun. |
The problem with this question is that any yokel can pull any answer out of their ass and start discussing it as if they were the new Aristotle. It's impossible to make any progress because the question itself has no meaning/purpose.
It basically is tantamount to a big circle-jerk. Except even circle-jerks typically end with a definitive conclusion.