Measuring Existence?

[altonhare]

But even this does not clearify what you mean: when a shape is changed from A to B it implies that shape A is lost - it's logical. What do you mean by loses then? Matter cannot cease to exist - it can only change form.

- Birkeland

Please read. I NEVER said that matter can cease to exist. I put forth a quote from Millers and interpreted it as saying that objects can come into existence and cease to exist. I am arguing against this claim and that's the whole point of this thread!

Losing shape is not the same as changing shape. A piece of steel (object A) does not become a a new object (B) if it is bent. It is the same piece of steel A i.e. all the atoms that we identified as part of the piece are still present in the universe and each have shape. Changing shape just means that the object is noncontinuous i.e. it is made of smaller parts separated by space. A continuous object would not bend or break by definition and could not change shape, by definition.

Which dosen't make any sense since matter can't cease to exist.

Again, I NEVER claimed it could. You attack straw men and put words in my mouth.

You didn't read it did you? The definition is simple and axiomatic (self-evident - and cannot be reduced any further): Existence is identity. Consciousness is identification.

I did read it, thanks for summing it up. Existence is identity AND location though. If an object has identity (can be distinguished from that which it is not) it does not exist, it only exists if it is additionally somewhere in the universe. The part about consciousness depends on what exactly she means by "consciousness" and is a poor word to use anyway because it is so subjective and argued over. "Existence: Identity" seems sufficient for her definition. I donno why she had to use a page for a single word. At most she needed to put: "Existence: Identity, i.e. is distinguished from that which it is not".

[Birkeland]

Please read. I NEVER said that matter can cease to exist.

Ok, my mistake. We agree on this point - no conflicts here.

I put forth a quote from Millers and interpreted it as saying that objects can come into existence and cease to exist. I am arguing against this claim and that's the whole point of this thread!

A car is an object made of matter. The object could cease to exist as a car, but the matter of which is it built does not cease to exist.

Losing shape is not the same as changing shape. A piece of steel (object A) does not become a a new object (B) if it is bent. It is the same piece of steel A i.e. all the atoms that we identified as part of the piece are still present in the universe and each have shape. Changing shape just means that the object is noncontinuous i.e. it is made of smaller parts separated by space. A continuous object would not bend or break by definition and could not change shape, by definition.

The block of steel could be reshaped into an object called a bowl - but the shape and/or attributes of the matter of which it is built is not lost. Are we speaking the same language now?

Again, I NEVER claimed it could. You attack straw men and put words in my mouth.

Not my intention.

I did read it, thanks for summing it up. Existence is identity AND location though. If an object has identity (can be distinguished from that which it is not) it does not exist, it only exists if it is additionally somewhere in the universe.

I totally agree on this point, and as Rand summed it up: Abstractions as such do not exist: they are merely man’s epistemological method of perceiving that which exists—and that which exists is concrete.

The part about consciousness depends on what exactly she means by "consciousness" and is a poor word to use anyway because it is so subjective and argued over.

Rand's definition: Consciousness is the faculty of awareness—the faculty of perceiving that which exists. How one perceives depends of philosophical methodology (or lack of it - without going into further detail here and now).

"Existence: Identity" seems sufficient for her definition. I donno why she had to use a page for a single word. At most she needed to put: "Existence: Identity, i.e. is distinguished from that which it is not".

Again: it's to illustrate the identification of axioms. You don't seem to need an explanation, but others might need it to understand.

[Plasmatic]

Alton, as I mentioned what you are asking would require the presentation of the entire Objectivist epistemology. You are currently expressing the Empiricist view of epistemology. The method you call scientific is based on this foundation.

As Rand pointed out:

[Rationalism vs. Empiricism] [Philosophers came to be divided] into two camps: those who claimed that man obtains his knowledge of the world by deducing it exclusively from concepts, which come from inside his head and are not derived from the perception of physical facts (the Rationalists)—and those who claimed that man obtains his knowledge from experience, which was held to mean: by direct perception of immediate facts, with no recourse to concepts (the Empiricists). To put it more simply: those who joined the [mystics] by abandoning reality—and those who clung to reality, by abandoning their mind.

Ayn Rand

Objectivism accepts neither interpretation. As I mentioned privately [the other day]this at root deals with the concept entity not exists. 'What is ,is" or 'existenc exists' this is an axiom ,along with its corrollary ,the law of identity [to be ,is to be something specific]it is not subject to proof nor can be. Bill mentiones this in his videos as well. However this is a moot point if one does not even consider the third axiom of consciousness as relevent. You mentioned you would have to think about your definition of consciousness. The deliberation over what concepts are valid requires on to identify the means of awareness of those concepts. Objectivism identifies consciousness as the vehicle of awareness.

The motive of all the attacks on man’s rational faculty—from any quarter, in any of the endless variations, under the verbal dust of all the murky volumes—is a single, hidden premise: the desire to exempt consciousness from the law of identity. The hallmark of a mystic is the savagely stubborn refusal to accept the fact that consciousness, like any other existent, possesses identity, that it is a faculty of a specific nature, functioning through specific means. While the advance of civilization has been eliminating one area of magic after another, the last stand of the believers in the miraculous consists of their frantic attempts to regard identity as the disqualifying element of consciousness.

The implicit, but unadmitted premise of the neo-mystics of modern philosophy, is the notion that only an ineffable consciousness can acquire a valid knowledge of reality, that “true” knowledge has to be causeless, i.e., acquired without any means of cognition.

Ayn Rand

Nevertheless ill expand breifly ,at the grace of the forums moderators.
The debate over the concept object is better understood by the conceptentity

To exist is to be something, as distinguished from the nothing of non-existence, it is to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes...

This term [entity] may be used in several senses. If you speak in the primary sense, “entity” has to be defined ostensively—that is to say, by pointing. I can, however, give you three descriptive characteristics essential to the primary, philosophic use of the term, according to Objectivism. This is not a definition, because I’d have to rely ultimately on pointing to make these points clear, but it will give you certain criteria for the application of the term in the primary sense . . .

An entity means a self-sufficient form of existence—as against a quality, an action, a relationship, etc., which are simply aspects of an entity that we separate out by specialized focus. An entity is a thing.....

An entity, in the primary sense, is a solid thing with a definite boundary—as against a fluid, such as air. In the literal sense, air is not an entity. There are contexts, such as when the wind moves as one mass, when you can call it that, by analogy, but in the primary sense, fluids are not entities...

An entity is perceptual in scale, in size. In other words it is a “this” which you can point to and grasp by human perception. In an extended sense you can call molecules—or the universe as a whole—“entities,” because they are self-sufficient things. But in the primary sense when we say that entities are what is given in sense perception, we mean solid things which we can directly perceive.....

Leonard Peikoff, “The Philosophy of Objectivism”
lecture series (1976), Lecture 3.

This is why Oist differentiate the Primacy of existence and see consciousness as secondary . None of this is relevent if you do not consider the content of consciousness as objectively based through the means of the primary biological identity of Mans particular nature..{i.e.Empiricism} The question of method {epistemology} becomes moot.

[Plasmatic]

LOL Birkeland you type faster than me.

[Plasmatic]

Say Alton ,Im reconsidering a few things I said . Ill get back to you soon.

[altonhare]

GC:

I think a lot of our problems are coming down to speaking the same language. When you point to a collection of atoms and name it, that collection of atoms still exists no matter what you decide to name it. Whether the atoms move around or whatever, it is still what you named it. The cloud does not cease to exist, the way YOU perceive it changes, i.e. you can't see the light it emits anymore or some of the atoms that comprised it are outside your view. This is a limitation of people, not of nature.

The piece of ice is still there, whatever you decide to name it. It does not cease to exist because the atoms become more separated or they stop emitting light in the visual range. Again, your inability to perceive what YOU called "ice" is a limitation of people. The ice is still all there whether the atoms are close or far.


Birkeland:

I think we worked this one out, thanks for the discussion!


I'll get back to you Plasm when you've reposted.

[Grey Cloud]

Alton you are as mad as a March hare if you think any of that makes sense. I am not disputing that the atoms continue to exist but that the (particular) ice-cube ceases to exist as an ice-cube. It is not so much to do with what you can see, as where the atoms are and what they are doing. You are saying 'once an ice-cube, always an ice-cube', which is nonsense.
This is using your definition of 'exist' by the way. Under my definition it does still exist but no longer has being once it has melted/evaporated. The atoms still have existence and being but being an ice-cube they is not. The ice-cube has gone Alton, you have to let go. There will be other ice-cubes.
Under your definition of 'exist', is a chicken always a chicken or always an egg? Or does it always exist as both, thereby answering the famous question?

Birkland and Plasmatic, what is the Randian take on this? Does the ice-cube still exist?

[Birkeland]

Does the ice-cube still exist?

If it melts its attributes changes and it is no longer perceive as an icecube, but as water. If the water is heated it becomes vapour. The matter only changes form - it still exist as what it is.

[altonhare]

Does the ice-cube still exist?

If it melts its attributes changes and it is no longer perceive as an icecube, but as water. If the water is heated it becomes vapour. The matter only changes form - it still exist as what it is.

Birkeland said it all.

[Plasmatic]

GC, the ice cube is called such because of its essential charachteristics . In this case the essentiality would be the fact that its frozen and has a cubed shape. When a particular {nods to Aristotle} entity loses essential charachteristics its then necessarry to form a new concept based on the current essential charachteristics. In the above example it is now a gas not an Ice cube. Defining an entity by non essentials[ how many atoms it has] destroys the unit economy involved in abstraction.

The key is is to recognize that ice cube is a mental integration involving the abstraction of essentialities from particular entities. [a particular,frozen,cube shaped, concrete entity.]


As far as Rands view of the locality of concepts,this discussion in the appendix of ITOE is relevent:

AR: .. Here I refer to the fact that the result of a process of concept-formation is a mental entity, a mental unit, which is an integration of the various elements involved in that process. The reason why I used the word "integration" is to indicate that it is not a mere sum but an inseparable sum forming a new mental unit.
Prof. F: If you and I have the same concept, does that mean that the same entity is in both of our minds?
AR: If we are both careful and rational thinkers, yes. Or rather, put it this way: the same entity should be in both of our minds. <ioe2_154>
Prof. F: Okay, taking concepts, therefore, as entities: they do not have spatial location, do they?
AR: No, I have said they are mental entities.
Prof. A: When you say a concept is a mental entity, you don't mean "entity" in the sense that a man is an entity, do you?
AR: I mean it in the same sense in which I mean a thought, an emotion, or a memory is an entity, a mental entity—or put it this way: a phenomenon of consciousness....

Prof. E: Would it be fair to say that a concept qua concept is not a concrete but an integration of concretes, but qua existent it is a concrete integration, a specific mental entity in a particular mind?
AR: That's right. But I kept saying, incidentally, that we can call them "mental entities" only metaphorically or for convenience. It is a "something." For instance, before you have a certain concept, that particular something doesn't exist in your mind. When you have formed the concept of "concept," that is a mental something; it isn't a nothing. But anything pertaining to the content of a mind always has to be treated metaphysically not as a separate existent, but only with this precondition, in effect: that it is a mental state, a mental concrete, a mental something. Actually, "mental something" is the nearest to an exact identification. Because "entity" does imply a physical thing. Nevertheless, since "something" is too vague a term, one can use the word "entity," but only to say that it is a mental something as distinguished from other mental somethings (or from nothing). But it isn't an entity in the primary, Aristotelian sense in which a primary substance exists.
We have to agree here on the terminology, because we <ioe2_158> are dealing with a very difficult subject for which no clear definitions have been established. I personally would like to have a new word for it, but I am against neologisms. Therefore I think the term "mental unit" or "mental entity" can be used, provided we understand by that: "a mental something."
Prof. A: I think I can give an analogy to clarify the two perspectives on "concept" that had been confused. Suppose you have a map of a city. In relation to that city, the map is generalized: it doesn't include the shape of specific houses, every little curve in the street, etc. But if you look at the map not insofar as it refers to the city, but just as a piece of paper with lines and colors on it, it is entirely specific. It doesn't have any little regions of vagueness or non-identity.
AR: That's a very good comparison. Yes, that is correct.

[soulsurvivor]

It's really going to be interesting to hear what they say when they meet their inside self face to face.

[mague]

Does the ice-cube still exist?

If it melts its attributes changes and it is no longer perceive as an icecube, but as water. If the water is heated it becomes vapour. The matter only changes form - it still exist as what it is.

Birkeland said it all.

Topic is: Measuring Existence

There is no general existance. We do need to know on wich plane we want to measure existance.

On the physical plane the ice cube melts and ends to exist indeed. On a different plane the memory of the ice cube remains in my brain. If an artist painted the ice cube its memory exists. On a philosophical plane maybe even the water has a memory of the ice cube.

Back to the 3D reality. Here the ice cube exists and when it melts it ends. But i do not think time is the unit to measure its 3D existance. We love to measure in time units. But its an error of reasoning imho. Time can only be used to measure movement. Within the famework of the ice cube temperature has a higher priority then time regarding his existance.

[Grey Cloud]

Plasmatic and Birkland,
Thanks for the two great explantions/definitions. Two oases of sanity and common sense in a maelstrom of verbiage and moving goal posts.

[Grey Cloud]

Altonhare,
[I'm using the timestamps so the quotes I'm using can be checked for 'creative editing' on my part]
You wrote on Tue Oct 21, 2008 1:08 am:

Exist: Physical Presence
Physical: Has shape, a contour, can be distinguished from its surroundings, can be distinguished from that which it is not, law of identity.
Presence: Location
Pursuant to this definition the statement "X ceases to exist" means that X either...
A) Loses shape, i.e. loses identity
B) Loses location, i.e. vanishes

This is the definition against which I have been arguing. You, however, have continually either ignored your own definition or added other parts to it as the dialogue moved along. You also agreed with Birkland's succinct definition:

If it [the ice-cube] melts its attributes change and it is no longer perceived as an icecube, but as water. If the water is heated it becomes vapour. The matter only changes form - it still exist as what it is.

, after coming out with statements such as:

To state than any object can lose shape is to state that it was not an object to begin with.

An object that loses identity has crossed surfaces with another object.

And here you have introduced the concept/notion of 'surfaces' which is not addressed in your definition.

On the other hand, losing location physically means that an object has simply vanished. In such a universe there is no first law of physics "The amount of matter in the universe is constant".

The first sentence makes absolutely no sense to me as it appears to bear no relation to what came before it or to what came after it. The statement about the amount of matter in the Universe is unprovable. It is a theory not a 'law', and one which I believe is based upon BB theory and the notion of a 'singularity'. [If anyone wishes to correct me me on this please do]
In challenging this, I introduced the examples of the cloud and the ice-cube.
I wrote, Tue Oct 21, 2008 10:26 pm:

What about a cloud that changes its shape then disappears? What about an ice-cube which melts and then evaporates?

You responded with:

This is easy. A cloud that "disappears" neither lost shape nor location. The light it emits has simply fallen out of the visible part of the spectrum. It's still there, in a more or less scattered form.

Again, the first sentence is pure insanity. The second sentence introduces the concept/notion of 'light' which is not mentioned in your original definition. In the third sentence you appear to be able to make something scatter yet maintain its location.
Folowing on from the above, you came up with:

Same for the ice cube. When it evaporates the light emitted by its atoms simply falls out of the visible spectrum. They are still there, they all still have shape and location.

Here again we have mention of 'light'. The final sentence is misleading. The atoms (hydrogen and oxygen) do indeed still have shape and location but the (collective) shape and location (individually and collectively) of the the atoms in ice-cube mode is not the same shape and location as when in vapour mode. And when I say 'shape' I do not mean the shape of a hydrogen or oxygen atom but the arrangement/configuraion of the atoms.
Then, in response to my example of emotions you wrote:

Emotions do not exist because they do not have location. I cannot establish a distance between my happiness and the wall.

Yet again, we have the seemingly mandatory insane first sentence, in which here you state catagorically that emotions do not exist. And, yet again, in the second sentence you introduce something which was not mentioned in your original definition, this time it is 'distance'.
We then had Thu Oct 23, 2008 6:30 pm:

When you point to a collection of atoms and name it, that collection of atoms still exists no matter what you decide to name it.

Here you fail to differentiate between the atoms, which exist independently of humans, and a named collection of atoms which does not exist independently of humans, i.e. it is the humans who have thought up and applied the name (label) to that particular configuration/collection of atoms. I have a collection of books (made of atoms). If I sell my books then my collection no longer exists though the books still do. Even if I sell all my books to one person, my collection ceases to exist and it becomes his collection. You continued:

The cloud does not cease to exist, the way YOU perceive it changes, i.e. you can't see the light it emits anymore or some of the atoms that comprised it are outside your view.

Here we have that johnny come lately 'light' again. I could never see the atoms in the cloud - humans can't see things as small as atoms. I could only ever see the light reflected off the cloud - that is all humans ever see, reflected light. 'Cloud' is a human concept/construct. The word 'cloud' has a specific definition(s), this is done, in part, in order that we may differentiate between a cloud and what is not a cloud and also between two clouds. The concept 'cloud' does not cease to exist when a particular cloud is, e.g., dissipated by the wind.
You then addressed the issue of the ice-cube:

The piece of ice is still there, whatever you decide to name it. It does not cease to exist because the atoms become more separated or they stop emitting light in the visual range. Again, your inability to perceive what YOU called "ice" is a limitation of people. The ice is still all there whether the atoms are close or far.

Here you have stepped up a gear and we are given four insane sentences. All of which are at odds with the definition given by Birkland (and Plasmatic) with which you claimed to agree.
That is enough of your insanity, now let us see what I wrote:
I wrote:
(Tue Oct 21, 2008 11:34 pm)

Do my emotions not exist? They have a presence but it is not physical; they have no shape nor contour; they cannot be distinguished from their surroundings; they cannot be distinguished form what is not because nobody has yet been able to distinguish anything which is not.

In discussing emotions I have used terms from your original definition: 'physical', 'shape', 'distinguished'. I have not introduced any new terms such as 'light', 'visible', 'distance', etc.
(Wed Oct 22, 2008 10:52 pm)

Here we go with definitions again but, surely if it has evaporated, it is no longer 'ice'? The puddle of water in its liquid form on the table will not have the same shape as the water in its solid state (assuming it's not a flash-frozen puddle). Nor will the evaporated water in its
gaseous state (doesn't volume increase as it changes state or summat?).
The evaporated water will also presumably rise, i.e. up and away from the table.

Here I have used one of your terms, i.e. 'shape', as it relates to our ice-cube. I do not see my position, as here expressed, being in anyway contradictory to the position of Birkland or Plasmatic. [P or B please correct me if I am wrong on this]
I also challenged the existence of 'object permanence' based on your definition of exist:

Does 'object permanence' exist? Does it have shape, location etc?

I did not introduced new terms.
(Thu Oct 23, 2008 7:45 pm)

I am not disputing that the atoms continue to exist but that the (particular) ice-cube ceases to exist as an ice-cube.

Here I have stated my position explicitly. Again, I do not see this being contradictatory to the position of B or P.

And you never did answer my question as to where you got your definition of 'exist'.

[altonhare]

GC you have misunderstood me a lot. Whether it has been a lack of clarity on my part or a lack of critical analysis on yours, doesn't matter. Let's see if I can clarify. Let's go back to square 1, the basics, or I'm afraid we'll get mired down.

My definition of "exist" is the only definition I know of that can be used consistently even in a universe where a human was never born. Something that exists has shape/contour, but it has that shape independent of your ability to perceive it at all. This is the primary reason I use the definition. When you see the cloud and name it you see its shape. Later on you don't see its shape, but it still has shape independent of your ability to perceive it. It can become scattered all over the world but its shape could still be perceived if only one had the right equipment. Even though we do not have the equipment, it still has shape. It still exists, period. It still has location, period. There is a distance from it to every other concrete object in the universe (definition of location).

The law "the amount of matter in the universe is constant" is of course not "provable". It is a matter of stating assumptions and stating the logic that falls from them. I define the universe as everything that has shape and location in addition to the space separating them. I state the assumption that space and matter cannot be converted into one another. This means that matter cannot spontaneously appear from nothing nor can it spontaneously dissapear into nothing. Based on this assumption I state that the amount of matter in the universe must be constant. Anyone is allowed to disagree with me if they refute my assumption and alternately assume that something can come from nothing. Or they may redefine "unvierse". It has absolutely nothing to do with BB theory, which actually states that everything in the universe was once "nothing" (0 dimensional point of 0 size). I find that notion preposterous.

You do attack some straw men. When I say the light has fallen out of the visible spectrum I am emphasizing that YOU cannot see it, but this has nothing to do with the objects existence. I do not need to put "light" in my definition of exist because I am arguing that an object exists independent of your ability to detect the light it emits. You argue that, because your eyes can detect it one moment but not the next, the object has ceased to exist. A human's ability to see an object has nothing to do with whether the object exists or not. Just because the ice cube has changed shape and location does not mean it doesn't exist. As you said, "the configuration of atoms and molecules has changed", but just because you can't perceive them doesn't mean they don't exist. You may not want to call it "ice cube" anymore because of how YOU perceive it now, but that's an entirely subjective human choice.

If what you name "cloud" is a particular arrangement of atoms then the word "cloud" is a concept and does not exist. A concept is a relationship among objects, such as their configuration. Alternately if you name something "cloud" but do not care about the relationship among its constituents then it is a concrete object and can never cease to exist. It may change shape or change location, of course, but never cease to exist (unless you argue that something can come from nothing and vice versa). You more or less said this yourself:

The concept 'cloud' does not cease to exist when a particular cloud is, e.g., dissipated by the wind.

- GC

As I said, the word "cloud" as a concept does not exist so of course it cannot be said to either cease or begin to exist. The object cloud exists and, if we assume something cannot come from nothing and vice versa, it cannot be said to begin or cease to exist.

So I think our disagreement comes primarily from a difference in definition of "exist". You are okay saying your emotions exist or concepts exist. I'm not. The reason I'm not is because in a universe there was never life there would just be one big automated pinball machine. There would be no concepts. There would only be concrete objects changing location. My definition of "exist" is as objective as possible because things exist completely independent of human perception or thought.