Does anything exist?

[theprestige]

You're not making sense. If this new source of energy existed, those with money and power would jump at the opportunity for a new market.

Just like the coal industry kept oil and hydro a secret. And just like the oil industry kept nuclear, solar, and wind a secret.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Does anything exist?

Short answer "yes" with an "if", long answer "no" with a "but".

 

[Belz...]

The fact you can even think about asking a question means that _something_ exists. As to what that is, well, that's another question.

 

[bruto]

Just like the coal industry kept oil and hydro a secret. And just like the oil industry kept nuclear, solar, and wind a secret.

And don't forget the 100 mile per gallon carburetor. We'll never see that one, they hid it so well.

On your other question, I am guessing that the OP meant the question in the post, not the title, since the title is utterly nonsensical and the post could be said to make some sense even if it's entirely wrong.

I'm reminded of an old "Grook" by Piet Hein, which, as I recall, goes:

"The universe may
be as great as they say,
but it wouldn't be missed
if it didn't exist."

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Whoa man, thats deep! You don't have anything to eat round here do you? I'm really hungry for some reason.

Yes I'm longing to see some reason in this thread too.

 

[abaddon]

A lot of very smart people argue that so called empty space is replete in energy and this will act as the springboard for our next technological jump .
Naturally those whose money and power is built on more conventional power and propulsion sources will do everything and more to ensure a smooth transition to this new level when it suits and profits them and only them .

What a bizarre position. BIG something is suppressing something. You claim that you know what that is, yet you cannot identify what that is, nor what is being suppressed.

OK, Leprechauns are being suppressed because they have gold and the Illuminatti want that gold at the end of the end of the rainbow.

Prove me wrong.

And somehow, you think that such absurdities are valid.

Check in with Vlad, why not. He may provide a better strategy.

Because the one you are using now is unbelievably useless.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Because it's pHiLoSoPhY and therefore isn't bound by our stodgy expectations of making sense or being meaningful.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

Have we got to "What do you mean, mean?" yet?

 

[abaddon]

Because it's pHiLoSoPhY and therefore isn't bound by our stodgy expectations of making sense or being meaningful.

I certainly would not chuck out philosophy per se. There is a hatload of decent philosophy out there to be read and understood. I am glad of it.

What puts an onion in my ointment is that, for example is the stupid solipsists, who insist nothing is actually real, yet act as though everything is real while insisting that it is not.

Why do they pay their taxes? Look both ways when crossing the street? Take out insurance policies? Get up in the morning?

Let loose, it makes more sense to commit suicide so that one gets to god quicker. Except suicide is a "sin". And thus one gets to the inevitable conclusion that such borked thinking accepts because "RELIGION".

One only need to look at Andrea Yeats. She was willing to take the hit of eternal hell for murdering her five kids. The kids would be innocent and she took upon herself the guilt of child murder and destination hell for her, but at least her children would be on the fast track to heaven.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I certainly would not chuck out philosophy per se. There is a hatload of decent philosophy out there to be read and understood. I am glad of it.

This will immediately dissolve into semantics but... I sorta kinda disagree, but cards on the table it's largely a difference of definition.

There was a quip that Zach Weinersmith made/shared on his Twitter a few days ago that said; paraphrased; that nothing exciting ever happens in chemistry because if anything exciting happens in chemistry it's classified as biology. (Or something to that effect, I can't find the Tweet I'm remembering)

I sort of feel the same way about philosophy. Nothing intellectually meaningful ever happens in philosophy because if it does it's no longer philosophy, it's science.

Philosophy always declares itself the winner of everything by defining itself so broadly as to be meaningless. All thought, all thought about thought, all thoughts about thoughts about thoughts, etc are "A type of philosophy" which is why all arguments with the Philosophy Fan Club always involve the "You can't criticize philosophy because what you are doing is a type of philosophy because everything is philosophy because some philosopher once said so" argument.

At this point regardless of what it is via technical dictionary definition, what it used to be, what is was meant to be, or what it is intended to be, Philosophy now on a functional level nearly never raises above the level "labeling and categorizing all the wrongness and trying to pretend that makes them all valid alternative forms of rightness."

 

[Lrrr]

I had a dream last night in which I was having a discussion with my ex philosophy teacher. She said nothing exists and gave the name of a philosopher as a reference to that viewpoint. Unfortunately I cannot remember the name.
Does anyone know of a philosopher who held that view?

I said in the dream, I exist because I think therefore I am, and my mind is not capable of creating all that I perceive. But I do believe that Gods mind is capable of sustaining creation and the laws of physics that support everything we observe. However everything is an illusion, and it is not what it appears to be to our senses.

I'm pretty sure that was an episode of Young Sheldon this season.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

And I Dreamed I Saw St. Augustine

 

[Belz...]

There was a quip that Zach Weinersmith made/shared on his Twitter a few days ago that said; paraphrased; that nothing exciting ever happens in chemistry because if anything exciting happens in chemistry it's classified as biology. (Or something to that effect, I can't find the Tweet I'm remembering)

I sort of feel the same way about philosophy. Nothing intellectually meaningful ever happens in philosophy because if it does it's no longer philosophy, it's science.

I ******* love that. I'll try to remember it.

 

[bruto]

Gorgias, the first and most famous nihilist, supposedly said that nothing exists, but if did we could not know it, and even if we knew it we could not communicate it.

It sounds a little like Giuliani explaining Trump. It didn't happen but if it did it would be legal, and even if it wasn't legal it was permissible....etc.

Gorgias was a sophist, and in a way his argument has that perverse logic. Since you cannot explain the inexplicable, the argument itself must come short if it isn't false.

Likewise, trying to explain or prove anything by referring it to something whose very nature transcends explanation is, while a win for the faithful, just kicking the can down the road.

 

[JoeMorgue]

My standard experiment of "Throwing a rock at your head to see if you still duck" also applies here. This is a wonderful tool against solipsists, "Cause and effect" deniers, and pacifists.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I had a dream last night in which I was having a discussion with my ex philosophy teacher. She said nothing exists and gave the name of a philosopher as a reference to that viewpoint.

That's sad. I once had a dream involving Tia Carrere, and like a mix of Wayne World Tia Carrere and True Lies Tia Carrere so... yeah *makes the hot under the collar motion* and let me tell you it sounds like my dream was a lot better than yours.

 

[Belz...]

I once had a dream involving Tia Carrere

That sounds like a lovely dream.

 

[The Man]

The obligatory link, for these types of threads, to the bomb 20 scene from "Dark Star" .

 

[suren]

Descartes argued that the only thing that we can be certain in is our own existence, or more precisely the existence of our self / our thoughts / consciousness.
Cōgitō ergō sum

 

[IanS]

I had a dream last night in which I was having a discussion with my ex philosophy teacher. She said nothing exists and gave the name of a philosopher as a reference to that viewpoint. Unfortunately I cannot remember the name.
Does anyone know of a philosopher who held that view?

She told you that nothing exists? And then she told you to check some named philosopher? ... well, according to her she just told you that (a) the philosopher did not exist! ... and (b) she also just told you that she herself does not exist! ... in which case (c) she could not have told you anything! ...

I said in the dream, I exist because I think therefore I am, and my mind is not capable of creating all that I perceive. But I do believe that Gods mind is capable of sustaining creation and the laws of physics that support everything we observe. However everything is an illusion, and it is not what it appears to be to our senses.

If you say that you exist because of saying "I think, therefore I am", then you've got an immediate problem with that quote because it starts by assuming you do exist in the first place, i.e. it starts by saying " I think ...".

I don't doubt that we all exist. And I don't think we need the huge mess of a subject called "philosophy" to decide that of course we exist. And more than that - what is the reason to think that the universe which we detect, measure & explain through modern science, may not exist?

Just because our human senses cannot detect various parts of any energy spectrum. And just because various experiments that science devises, may have certain flaws that lead us to wrong conclusions occasionally (though, far more often they lead to conclusions that can be repeatedly tested and confirmed) ... that does not mean the world that we perceive either does not exist, or even that it's vastly different to the way our senses and our experiments reveal it to be ... why would you think otherwise?

And when you talk about God having a mind capable of sustaining creation etc. - where is the evidence for any such God?

So far, despite thousands of years of religious claims, no genuine evidence has ever been found for any god/God. Absolutely nothing at all. Zero.

On the other hand vast mountains of evidence have been found to show that in ancient times (and even still today) people (inc. all religious people over the ages) have always been wide open to believing and claiming all manner of untrue things ... especially in claims of miracles and the supernatural.

So there's unlimited piles of evidence to show the God beliefs were never true. But where is there any evidence to show that any God claim was ever true??