Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[ChanceIsChange]

As odd as it might sound, claiming that the Logos doesn't exist doesn't mean it's not real. There's a subtle difference between the two concepts.

Could that be justified by an argument such as the following?

1. For everything that exists, there is a cause for its existence. (premise)
2. There isn’t anything that can cause its own existence directly or indirectly. (premise)
3. Infinite regress is impossible. (premise)
4. Every cause is real. (premise)
5. Something exists (call it x). (Premise)
6. There is a chain C of causes up to x. (from 1. and 5.)
7. C has a finite number of links. (from 3)
8. C has a first link F. (from 2. and 7.)
9. F is a cause. (from 8.)
10. F does not have a cause. (from 8.)
11. F is real. (from 4. and 9. by modus ponens)
12. F does not exist. (from 1. and 10. by modus tollens)
13. Reality and existence are distinct. (from 11. and 12.)

[Mbw]

There seem to be two subtly different understandings of information here.
I would suggest that the information "contained" in the moving object is the information that could be gleaned from observing its state.
(note that I do not intend to imply that the information is not there if it is not observed).
It is also important to note that it is information of the state of the object relative to other objects.
An object in isolation cannot be said to be moving, there is only information about its motion when it is compared to other objects that are in a different state of motion.