Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[GE Morton]

If we take a notion of something that doesn't exist, example, no matter or energy might have existed in zero-t conditions, can we say that the E =mc^2 is zero for E and m, or are we prohibited from asigning a number value to something that doesn't exist, and what would this mean for c?

Zero is the numerical value assigned to all non-existents. That is its purpose. Saying "There are zero elephants in this room" just means, "No elephant exists in this room."

We say that t is zero in zero t. By this argument, does it mean time exists, but just has a different property? If time does not exist, how can we assign a value to it, since the enigma of zero hasn't quite been solved.

Propositions involving the terms "T (sub) 0" and "T (sub) n" don't raise questions about the existence of time, but concern the duration of an interval of time.

[EMTe]

Why does original poster assume "number values" are existent things in opposition to nonexistent ones, whatever they are?

Number is a number. Simple mix of your brain neuronal activity and your mouth open. Or hand extended. Chair is a piece of wood. Building is a piece of stone (or frequently glass, nowadays).

How something can not exist, if the sole notion of non-existence is a simple linguistic trick.

[3017Metaphysician]

If we take a notion of something that doesn't exist, example, no matter or energy might have existed in zero-t conditions, can we say that the E =mc^2 is zero for E and m, or are we prohibited from asigning a number value to something that doesn't exist, and what would this mean for c?

Zero is the numerical value assigned to all non-existents. That is its purpose. Saying "There are zero elephants in this room" just means, "No elephant exists in this room."

We say that t is zero in zero t. By this argument, does it mean time exists, but just has a different property? If time does not exist, how can we assign a value to it, since the enigma of zero hasn't quite been solved.

Propositions involving the terms "T (sub) 0" and "T (sub) n" don't raise questions about the existence of time, but concern the duration of an interval of time.

GE!

Nope. Don't mean to take the wind out of your old sails GE, but you may want to think through what it means for a some-thing to be a 'non-existent'.

For example, 0 is a placeholder in the design of many existing things including computers, algorithmic information theory, engineering, physics, and so on. It exists and as a logical necessity for those and other things to do their job. Much like abstract things we experience in consciousness, the Will, Platonism, music, gravity, time, engineering design, and other metaphysical phenomena. Abstract things are all around us, and are logically necessary things, it's just that your eyes can't see them. Think of it like the physical needing the meta-physical to do its job. Or an structure that exists but contains an abstract formula behind its existence. In that instance, the engineer who designs a wooden beam using abstract mathematics, it is the abstract meta-physical that causes the physical to come into existence. It all started with his ideas.

That would be your elephant in the room

The OP question about whether something exists, yet has a different properties, would also relate to your particular paradox of quality v. quantity. Alternatively, unless of course, you would like to argue that numbers in-themselves can be touched and experienced, like concrete and elephants, they exist, just not physically/materially. You can perceive them like ideas, but you can't touch those ideas and associated feelings about them. You know, kinda like the human perception of time and the other foregoing metaphysical phenomena that one experiences.

[The Beast]

In computers: Hardware, software, energy and clocking. (As in brains)

Some brains are better suited to move times of events. This special capability is the time translation symmetry. It is under the laws of physics that this is an invariant symmetry. However, the breaking of symmetry in the creation of a time crystal that showed to be stable and ever-changing and in order despite being in an excited and evolving state is now subject to our musing of the conditions/definitions of existence and non-existence.

[Consul]

Why does original poster assume "number values" are existent things in opposition to nonexistent ones, whatever they are?

I don't think a numerical truth such as "The number of US states is 50" implies that there (really) is such an entity as the number 50.
Note that there is a distinction between numbers as nonlinguistic mathematical entities and numerals as linguistic entities (purporting to represent numbers); so the existence of numerals doesn't entail the existence of numbers (as abstract mathematical objects).
However, there is a further distinction between tokens and types of numerals: Numeral-tokens are concrete (mental or physical) objects, whereas numeral-types are abstract (nonmental and nonphysical) objects. Numeral-types are as (ontologically) abstract as numbers, but there is still a difference between them insofar as the former are (arguably) language-dependent and the latter are not. (By saying so, I'm not implying that there really are abstract numeral-types and numbers.)

How something can not exist, if the sole notion of non-existence is a simple linguistic trick.

Many things do not exist, but…

QUOTE:
"The problem, put crudely, is to make sure that things that don´t exist don´t end up existing after all."

"The complement class of 'exists' is purely intentional—its esse is concipi."

"There are no mind-independent non-existent entities."

"There are no non-existent things that transcend our cognitive acts; all non-existent things are objects of thought, as a matter of necessity."

"When we say that an object does not exist we are ascribing non-existence to a purely intentional object."

"Intentional objects have just those properties our mental acts confer on them."

"To exist is to have the simple property of existence, but non-existence seems to be matter of failed intentionality."
(p. 42)

"The basic truth condition of the negative existential is that there was only an entertaining of existence."
(p. 43)

"Non-existence is essentially and constitutively failed intentionality[.]"
(p. 43)

"[N]on-existence results from the occurrence of a certain kind of mental act—a pretence or an erroneous postulation of existence. Assertions of non-existence really are statements about mental acts."
(p. 43)

"[T]he non-existence of Holmes depends upon the occurrence of certain creative mental acts that have no target in the real world; if you like, such non-existence is supervenient on mental acts that have no real world reference."
(p. 43n45)

"[T]o say that an object does not exist is to allude to mistaken suppositions or acts of make-believe."
(p. 44)

"[N]on-existence really does have a lot more to do with misfirings of the mind than do other kinds of property lack."
(p. 44)

"The negation of existence works differently from the negation of other properties, because of the underlying representation-dependence of non-existence."
(p. 44)

(McGinn, Colin. Logical Properties: Identity, Existence, Predication, Necessity, Truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2000.)
:QUOTE

[GE Morton]

Nope. Don't mean to take the wind out of your old sails GE, but you may want to think through what it means for a some-thing to be a 'non-existent'.

Nope. No thinking necessary. The meaning of the term is clear and obvious.

For example, 0 is a placeholder in the design of many existing things including computers, algorithmic information theory, engineering, physics, and so on. It exists and as a logical necessity for those and other things to do their job. Much like abstract things we experience in consciousness, the Will, Platonism, music, gravity, time, engineering design, and other metaphysical phenomena. Abstract things are all around us, and are logically necessary things, it's just that your eyes can't see them.

"Thing" is the universal noun; everything denotable is a "thing." Because the extension of that term is so broad you have to be careful when speaking of "things" to specify to just what category of things you're referring, if that is not clear from context. And, no, there are no "abstract things all around us." Abstract things only exist in the realm of concepts, and in the terms we invent for denoting those concepts. There are no "abstract things" in the world (which is why we can't see them).

Think of it like the physical needing the meta-physical to do its job.

Nope. Nothing physical needs anything "metaphysical to do its job," or to be what it is. "Metaphysical things" exist in the minds of some philosophers (most of them confused), and nowhere else.

Or an structure that exists but contains an abstract formula behind its existence. In that instance, the engineer who designs a wooden beam using abstract mathematics, it is the abstract meta-physical that causes the physical to come into existence. It all started with his ideas.

Wrong again. No structure "contains" any "abstract formula behind its existence." The abstract formula exists only in the mind of the engineer, and is used by him to facilitate building the structure. It never becomes part of the structure. People built things long before they had any abstract formulae to ease their work, as do birds, beavers, ants, etc. A particular building may have started with an architect's idea, but that idea appeared in his consciousness as a result of neural activity in his brain.

The OP question about whether something exists, yet has a different properties, would also relate to your particular paradox of quality v. quantity.

Ah. What "paradox" might that be?

Alternatively, unless of course, you would like to argue that numbers in-themselves can be touched and experienced, like concrete and elephants, they exist, just not physically/materially.

Now, why would I want to argue that? Phenomenal "things" are not physical "things." Again, you repeat your category mistake.

[Consul]

Many things do not exist…

Richard Routley even thought that…

"Most things do not exist."

(Routley, Richard, and Val Routley. Noneist Explorations I. Vol. 2 of The Sylvan Jungle. Edited by Dominic Hyde. Cham: Springer, 2019. p. 67)

[3017Metaphysician]

Nope. Don't mean to take the wind out of your old sails GE, but you may want to think through what it means for a some-thing to be a 'non-existent'.

Nope. No thinking necessary. The meaning of the term is clear and obvious.

Does that mean it's as clear as the number 0?

For example, 0 is a placeholder in the design of many existing things including computers, algorithmic information theory, engineering, physics, and so on. It exists and as a logical necessity for those and other things to do their job. Much like abstract things we experience in consciousness, the Will, Platonism, music, gravity, time, engineering design, and other metaphysical phenomena. Abstract things are all around us, and are logically necessary things, it's just that your eyes can't see them.

"Thing" is the universal noun; everything denotable is a "thing." Because the extension of that term is so broad you have to be careful when speaking of "things" to specify to just what category of things you're referring, if that is not clear from context. And, no, there are no "abstract things all around us." Abstract things only exist in the realm of concepts, and in the terms we invent for denoting those concepts. There are no "abstract things" in the world (which is why we can't see them).

Wow, lot's of categorical errors there GE. Let's take one abstract at time.

1. What's concrete about the laws of gravity?

Think of it like the physical needing the meta-physical to do its job.

Nope. Nothing physical needs anything "metaphysical to do its job," or to be what it is. "Metaphysical things" exist in the minds of some philosophers (most of them confused), and nowhere else.

Does this mean a person who is angry, has angry neuron's?

Or an structure that exists but contains an abstract formula behind its existence. In that instance, the engineer who designs a wooden beam using abstract mathematics, it is the abstract meta-physical that causes the physical to come into existence. It all started with his ideas.

Wrong again. No structure "contains" any "abstract formula behind its existence." The abstract formula exists only in the mind of the engineer, and is used by him to facilitate building the structure. It never becomes part of the structure. People built things long before they had any abstract formulae to ease their work, as do birds, beavers, ants, etc. A particular building may have started with an architect's idea, but that idea appeared in his consciousness as a result of neural activity in his brain.

Give yourself credit GE, you finally got one right! The abstract formula does exist in the mind of people, people like engineer's! And the causes to create the formula in-itself, also exists in the mind and is also abstract No?

The OP question about whether something exists, yet has a different properties, would also relate to your particular paradox of quality v. quantity.

Ah. What "paradox" might that be?

Er, uh, your angry neuron's?

Alternatively, unless of course, you would like to argue that numbers in-themselves can be touched and experienced, like concrete and elephants, they exist, just not physically/materially.

Now, why would I want to argue that? Phenomenal "things" are not physical "things." Again, you repeat your category mistake.

It seems like your neuron's are physical things?

[Consul]

Zero is the numerical value assigned to all non-existents. That is its purpose. Saying "There are zero elephants in this room" just means, "No elephant exists in this room."

Yes, this sentence is synonymous with "The number of elephants in this room is zero".
However, nonexistents are countable; so their number needn't always be zero. For example, the number of Sherlock Holmes' assistants is one (Dr. Watson), even though both Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson are fictional and thus nonexistent persons.

[GE Morton]

Does that mean it's as clear as the number 0?

Yes. The meaning of "zero" is equally clear.

"Thing" is the universal noun; everything denotable is a "thing." Because the extension of that term is so broad you have to be careful when speaking of "things" to specify to just what category of things you're referring, if that is not clear from context. And, no, there are no "abstract things all around us." Abstract things only exist in the realm of concepts, and in the terms we invent for denoting those concepts. There are no "abstract things" in the world (which is why we can't see them).

Wow, lot's of categorical errors there GE. Let's take one abstract at time.

1. What's concrete about the laws of gravity?

Nothing. The laws of gravity are abstract, conceptual constructs which exist in certain minds (minds which understand them). Gravity, however, is a physical force, and quite concrete.

Nope. Nothing physical needs anything "metaphysical to do its job," or to be what it is. "Metaphysical things" exist in the minds of some philosophers (most of them confused), and nowhere else.

Does this mean a person who is angry, has angry neuron's?

Only if one has adopted an erroneous and dysfunctional ontology, such as yours.

Wrong again. No structure "contains" any "abstract formula behind its existence." The abstract formula exists only in the mind of the engineer, and is used by him to facilitate building the structure. It never becomes part of the structure. People built things long before they had any abstract formulae to ease their work, as do birds, beavers, ants, etc. A particular building may have started with an architect's idea, but that idea appeared in his consciousness as a result of neural activity in his brain.

Give yourself credit GE, you finally got one right! The abstract formula does exist in the mind of people, people like engineer's! And the causes to create the formula in-itself, also exists in the mind and is also abstract No?

Nope. The causes of abstract ideas, and all other contents of consciousness, are neural processes occurring in the brain.

Ah. What "paradox" might that be?

Er, uh, your angry neuron's?

Er, why do you persist in ascribing that silly phrase, invented by you and used only by you, to me?

It seems like your neuron's are physical things?

They sure are.

[GE Morton]

Zero is the numerical value assigned to all non-existents. That is its purpose. Saying "There are zero elephants in this room" just means, "No elephant exists in this room."

Yes, this sentence is synonymous with "The number of elephants in this room is zero".
However, nonexistents are countable; so their number needn't always be zero. For example, the number of Sherlock Holmes' assistants is one (Dr. Watson), even though both Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson are fictional and thus nonexistent persons.

Fictional persons (and other things) are also existents. They're just not physical existents. (There are innumerable classes of non-physical existents).

[3017Metaphysician]

Does that mean it's as clear as the number 0?

Yes. The meaning of "zero" is equally clear.

Are you sure? What is so clear about numbers? Are they concrete? Can you touch them?

"Thing" is the universal noun; everything denotable is a "thing." Because the extension of that term is so broad you have to be careful when speaking of "things" to specify to just what category of things you're referring, if that is not clear from context. And, no, there are no "abstract things all around us." Abstract things only exist in the realm of concepts, and in the terms we invent for denoting those concepts. There are no "abstract things" in the world (which is why we can't see them).

Wow, lot's of categorical errors there GE. Let's take one abstract at time.

1. What's concrete about the laws of gravity?

Nothing. The laws of gravity are abstract, conceptual constructs which exist in certain minds (minds which understand them). Gravity, however, is a physical force, and quite concrete.

We're confused, first you said there are no metaphysical abstract's that exist, now you are suggesting they do exist?

Nope. Nothing physical needs anything "metaphysical to do its job," or to be what it is. "Metaphysical things" exist in the minds of some philosophers (most of them confused), and nowhere else.

Does this mean a person who is angry, has angry neuron's?

Only if one has adopted an erroneous and dysfunctional ontology, such as yours.

But how are erroneous and dysfunctional ontologies relative to concrete things? Are they erroneous neuron's of some kind?

Too, always remember GE, attack the message not messenger. I've been told it shows a sign of weakness. I think it distracts from the subject matter, don't you?

Anyway, we're confused again. We have two problems. Now you are suggesting you have 'fallacious' (ad hominem fallacies) neuron's? Please correct the 'meta-physical' record if you can. Otherwise, please go ahead and describe what "erroneous and dysfunctional ontology" really means, you know, in a concrete material way.

Wrong again. No structure "contains" any "abstract formula behind its existence." The abstract formula exists only in the mind of the engineer, and is used by him to facilitate building the structure. It never becomes part of the structure. People built things long before they had any abstract formulae to ease their work, as do birds, beavers, ants, etc. A particular building may have started with an architect's idea, but that idea appeared in his consciousness as a result of neural activity in his brain.

Give yourself credit GE, you finally got one right! The abstract formula does exist in the mind of people, people like engineer's! And the causes to create the formula in-itself, also exists in the mind and is also abstract No?

Nope. The causes of abstract ideas, and all other contents of consciousness, are neural processes occurring in the brain.

Okay, so are you saying the engineer has 'abstract' neuron's?

Ah. What "paradox" might that be?

Er, uh, your angry neuron's?

Er, why do you persist in ascribing that silly phrase, invented by you and used only by you, to me?

It's actually the other way around. Remember you had told us that neuron's exclusively cause angry behavior? Let's see, these are the corresponding conclusions one can draw from your previous argument that all material things (neurons) cause human behavior, like the incitement of violence, anger, having properties and qualities of intellect and so on. Here are your simple 'categorical errors' :

All humans are sentient
All neuron's are in humans
Therefore, all neuron's are sentient

Hence, we can reasonably infer you have angry neuron's that are causing you to incite violence. No? Please feel free to correct the logic, to support your argument, if you are able.

It seems like your neuron's are physical things?

They sure are.

And they certainly are angry too

[The Beast]

It seems like your neuron's are physical things?
They sure are.

It is then. What is the definition of physical? Is there a limit to the fundamental. To the atomists, it was the atom even if they could not see or feel the atom.

[Consul]

"Thing" is the universal noun; everything denotable is a "thing." Because the extension of that term is so broad you have to be careful when speaking of "things" to specify to just what category of things you're referring, if that is not clear from context.

You are right insofar as the noun "thing" can be and often is used so broadly and ontologically indifferently that in this sense it is true that everything is a thing; but there is also a narrower ontological sense, in which it is not true that everything is a thing, because some entities or items are nonthings—in the sense that they don't belong to the narrowly defined ontological categories object, substance, or body.

There is a (little known) monocategorial ontology called reism, according to which everything is a thing, with this being a (contentious) substantive ontological thesis rather than a trivial truism: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reism/

[Consul]

Yes, this sentence is synonymous with "The number of elephants in this room is zero".
However, nonexistents are countable; so their number needn't always be zero. For example, the number of Sherlock Holmes' assistants is one (Dr. Watson), even though both Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson are fictional and thus nonexistent persons.

Fictional persons (and other things) are also existents. They're just not physical existents. (There are innumerable classes of non-physical existents).

No, fictional existence isn't a form of existence but simply nonexistence—no matter whether the fictional object or person in question is a fictional material/physical one or a fictional immaterial/nonphysical one. Whatever exists only according to some fiction just does not exist at all.