Doubting your disbelief?

[Gertrude]

What I'm saying is that all statements of existence are statements about information. When we assert that something exists, we are asserting that we have, or can obtain, in principle, information relating to that thing.

No. We are asserting that someone, somewhere can obtain information relating to that thing.

 

[PixyMisa]

No. We are asserting that someone, somewhere can obtain information relating to that thing.

Then you are asserting that this someone exists. I have a slight problem with that.

 

[Gertrude]

That's the problem. There isn't any independent truth.

What makes you think that? I think that existence is a statement that is true or false, independantly of what you may know of said object.

"Santa claus exists" is likely to be false. The thought of Santa may exist in some children's heads but I doubt that the real Santa exist.

"The earth exists" is true. It does not matter one bit that habitants of planet 462868, outside of our light cone, have no information from us. We still exist.

 

[Gertrude]

Then you are asserting that this someone exists. I have a slight problem with that.

Whether said person exist or not is irrelevant. The idea is that existence could be verified in principle.

ETA:

 

[nescafe]

Not for Popper, but that's definitely worth asking in the Science forum.

Conjectures and Refutations is a good read along those lines.

 

[Gertrude]

Thanks a bunch nescafe!