Axioms, 'validity' and honest examinations

[Xulld]

I personally am a materialist. From a material perspective the definition of existence is that which interacts.

The philosophy of materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter; that all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions. In other words, matter is the only substance. As a theory, materialism is a form of physicalism and belongs to the class of monist ontology. As such, it is different from ontological theories based on dualism or pluralism. For singular explanations of the phenomenal reality, materialism would be in contrast to idealism and to spiritualism.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I personally am a materialist. From a material perspective the definition of existence is that which interacts.

What other definition could someone possibly use?

 

[Xulld]

I personally am a materialist. From a material perspective the definition of existence is that which interacts.

What other definition could someone possibly use?

Exactly. If someone can come up with a positive definition for existence that does not deal in interactions or reference relationships of structure, id be surprised.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Exactly. If someone can come up with a positive definition for existence that does not deal in interactions or reference relationships of structure, id be surprised.

That's what makes it ridiculous to compare us to theists, who reject that definition of "exists" to include things that have no interaction with, relationship to, or manifestation in the real world.

 

[GoodKat]

Nothing that does not exist can act or influence

This axiom seems to imply that anything which cannot be observed as acting or influencing (that which is undetectable or, more accurately, which has not been detected) does not exist.

This is certainly a fallacy of affirming the consequent, as it does not say "that which exists acts or influences". The statement does, however, imply that action and influence always indicate existence.

Indeed, we exclude from our models that which we have no evidence off (observation of the thing or its effect or influence)- hence the rejection of deity, atoms (in the past), dualism, tachyons...

You are confusing what is, and what should be believed. Only substantiated claims should be accepted, and the only way to substantiate the claim "X exists" is to demonstrate how X exerts influence, this does not mean that that which does not act does not exist, just like an unjustified claim is not necessarily untrue, it just shouldn't be assumed to be true.

 

[Zylstra]

lol


damn, you fools are easy

 

[Xulld]

The label existence is just a means of categorization. However we must seperate the ontic (what is) from the epistemic (what we know)

So if we label all of the components of our universe that are needed for our universe to be our universe, each part plays its role and without that part our universe would not be our universe.

a=a becuase of its components, observed, known or otherwise.

If you remove one of those components then its no longer the same thing, its identity has changed.
So without knowing what the components are we know they all play a role in making this universe what it is.

If you have a theoretical entity which does not in any way EVER interact with any component of this set we call our universe then can it really be said to exist with that set? Is it really a part of that set if it plays no role? It would seem to me to be basic logic that an entity that has no interaction whatsoever with anything within that set, or the set as a whole is therefore not a member of that set nor needed to explain that set or any phenomena related to that set. Its useless to discuss that entity in relation to that set in regards to any function, structure, phenomena ect.

I would say no, complete non interaction removes an entity from that set of that which exists. Does that mean that new components cannot be added or subtracted from that set: no. It just means the identity of that set changes when those additions or subtractions occur. Now what an addition or subtraction would be is beyond me, certainly it would be acausal, unless your set was much bigger then you once thought . . . which is the way science and methodological naturalism treats it.

Science just adds to our epistemic understanding of the set, and does not assume an acausal addition to the set that always was. We must have very good reasons for assuming an acausal magical appearing of phenomena, or entities.

Its really just a matter of catagorization. No need to get metaphysical.