What exists in Reality?

Lion IRC

Active member
I asked Tercon..If a huge meteorite hits the Earth and all life becomes extinct, does the Earth suddenly cease to exist?

This was the answer.

Yes. A dead planet is no longer earth.

Apart from being blatant equivocation, this is an admission that the 'thing' does continue to exist. (You've simply renamed it to avoid conceding that your claim is refuted)
 

Lion IRC

Active member

Don't get sidetracked into opinions about whether or not it is a 'good' or true or useful representation of reality.

Stick to the metaphysics - inanimate objects can exist even if no sentient being knows they exist. This is properly basic.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Lion IRC

Active member
Interesting article, thanks.

But it only shows that WHAT is observed can vary from one observer to another.

...not that the existence of the thing observed depends on the observer.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
Recent experiments with quantum mechanics show that reality is depends on the observer.

With regards to the Proietti paper, it seems to be using detectors as observers, see the diagram, S1 on page 7. That is to say, there is nothing here to suggest that an observer has to be an intelligent mind, it could as readily by a Geiger counter.
 

Komodo

Well-known member
Yes, I considered that too.

But that would be a win for Tercon because the metaphysics would go like this...

Nothing exists that God didnt create and/or doesn't know about. If God doesn't know about it, it must not exist - wasn't created.

But I thought Tercon's argument was being applied to humans. If we don't know about it, it doesn't exist.

Tercon's argument is trivial if all other sentient beings are excluded from the equation and their knowledge of the existence of other inanimate 'things' is secondary to God's knowledge.

I might be mistaken, but I think Tercon is trying to develop this knowledge/existence dependency argument as a case against atheism (or materialism more specifically.) But I don't think it works even if it solely applies to 'things' being known of by God.

The atheist is going to say that Tercons argument works just as well in a godless universe where there are sentient atheists who know of things that exist in reality. In other words, an atheist could agree with Tercon's metaphysic and remain an atheist. They don't need God to agree that things don't exist unless atheists have known evidence of their existence.

Is there an argument from intentionality buried somewhere in Tercon's efforts?...no physical object exhibits intentionality and therefore materialism must be false.
Just to mention, belatedly, that if Tercon's argument were...

P1 If an omniscient mind exists, nothing can exist without that mind knowing/believing it exists
P2 An omniscient mind exists (namely, God)
C Therefore nothing can exist without at least one mind knowing/believing it exists

...then he could have made that point about 20,000 messages ago, and all us atheists would have conceded it was a valid argument, but disputed P2.

Maybe also worth noting that the conclusion might easily be read incorrectly. Read by itself, it looks at first glance as if it is saying "the existence of a knowing/believing mind is what makes it possible for anything to exist; nothing could exist without that." But actually, in the context of the syllogism, it just means "it is impossible for anything which already exists to escape the knowledge of all minds (given the existence of one mind which knows everything)."
 

Lion IRC

Active member
Yep. Agreed. Much easier.
But I don't think that's Tercons position.

I'm sympathetic to Tercon because I take it he/she is trying to develop and promote this idea as an argument against materialism/atheism.
...if nobody knows about it, does it really even exist?
...If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?


But the idea stalls when you test the premiss that a 'thing' which exists, suddenly ceases to exist the minute we all stop knowing about it. If life on Earth became extinct, dirt and rocks don't suddenly disappear.
 

Komodo

Well-known member
Yep. Agreed. Much easier.
But I don't think that's Tercons position.
No, I don't think so either. He could have readily articulated it if it were.

I'm sympathetic to Tercon because I take it he/she is trying to develop and promote this idea as an argument against materialism/atheism.
Well, I'd say there's no lack of people who've done a whole lot better at that than Tercon has; I mentioned Berkeley, for example. He had actual arguments, which were at least cogent and thought-provoking even if you didn't ultimately find them persuasive.
 

e v e 21

Active member
Please, if you are able to; name just one thing that doesn't require and entail a believing mind in order to be known to exist and occur in Reality?
God speaks reality into being.

He speaks reality into being from love...His Spirit who is the word is Love.

not from nothing.
not from material.

From Love...
 

Tercon

Well-known member
No, I don't think so either. He could have readily articulated it if it were.

Well, I'd say there's no lack of people who've done a whole lot better at that than Tercon has; I mentioned Berkeley, for example. He had actual arguments, which were at least cogent and thought-provoking even if you didn't ultimately find them persuasive.

I have not seen you refute my argument, so what are you referring to?
 

Lion IRC

Active member
Tercon, you keep on labelling every objection to your position as a 'strawman'.

Assuming you actually understand what a strawman argument is, this must mean that the position you (think you) hold, is not the same position as the one which I and others mistakenly thought you were asserting.

I hope you don't think I am deliberately employing a strawman argument against you. I have no reason or desire to do that.

If I challenge a proposition that I think you are asserting. And you respond by claiming 'strawman'. Then I'm happy. Because at least that means you ARENT asserting that proposition. And that's a relief. Because the 'strawman' in this case is an indefensible, gonzo, batsheet crazy idea.
 

inertia

Super Member
Still waiting for you to show how time is known to exist and occur in reality, without the benefit of a believing mind making it possible.

Being honest:

- Is there something ( your mind ) that causes you and I to remember the past, but not remember the future?

- Can the distant future affect the present in reality?

Hubble expansion isn't caused by our believing minds. Spacetime has been expanding long before believing physical minds existed as new nows are continuously created.

Go ahead - click the link.

___
 

Tercon

Well-known member
Being honest:

- Is there something ( your mind ) that causes you and I to remember the past, but not remember the future?

Yes. The truth and reality is a the result of a believing mind. That's why reality works like a believing mind, we remember the past because it occurred in our believing minds. And we cannot "remember the future" because it hasn't occurred in our believing minds.

- Can the distant future affect the present in reality?

The "distant future" isn't reality, that's why it isn't known, because reality like a believing mind can only be known in the present.

Hubble expansion isn't caused by our believing minds. Spacetime has been expanding long before believing physical minds existed as new nows are continuously created.

Go ahead - click the link.
___
Actually in reality the Hubble telescope and people's interpretation of what they are seeing with it is all the product of believing minds.
 
Top