Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Anything that 'must exist' necessarily exists. Therefore, everything that exists 'must exist.' Everything that exists, exists. This is a tautology.

I assume you are asking if there is anything whose existence you can know with absolute certainty, and the answer to that is no. (Case in point: how do you know you're not just an elaborate machine?)

At 1/15/11 03:30 AM, KemCab wrote: Anything that 'must exist' necessarily exists. Therefore, everything that exists 'must exist.' Everything that exists, exists. This is a tautology.

Good one! I've never thought about it that way before!

At 1/15/11 03:30 AM, KemCab wrote: Anything that 'must exist' necessarily exists.

I kinda meant what is there that we percieve to have experienced, what we think we know about, that must exist, like 4 example that our personalities must exist.

I assume you are asking if there is anything whose existence you can know with absolute certainty, and the answer to that is no. (Case in point: how do you know you're not just an elaborate machine?)

Well yeah, if we're talking about materialistic things, stuff you can touch, yeah, there's nothing materialistic I know about that certainly exists.

But hey, some abstract things must exist, regardless of what we percieve, and everything. That's what I was really pointing to.

I know I was a bit unprecise with what I meant with just "What Must Exist".

At 1/15/11 03:30 AM, KemCab wrote: I assume you are asking if there is anything whose existence you can know with absolute certainty, and the answer to that is no. (Case in point: how do you know you're not just an elaborate machine?)

I think that its safe to assume that there must be a "machine" (as in a state-machine) somewhere, and that that machine exists. And that therefor the answer is yes. There must be something that necessarily exists.

You can't ask the question if nothing exists.

Nobody can hear the question if nobody exists.

The question has to exist at the very least.

At 1/15/11 06:57 PM, UnknownOne wrote: Well yeah, if we're talking about materialistic things, stuff you can touch, yeah, there's nothing materialistic I know about that certainly exists.

But hey, some abstract things must exist, regardless of what we percieve, and everything. That's what I was really pointing to.

How is it certain that 'abstract things' are any more or less contrived than material things?

Nothing has to exist in my opinion. While the philisophical reasoning for certain things to exist may, for instance, avoid circular logic. But that doesn't make circular logic an invalid framework to utilise and in certain schools of though using circular logic would be just as valid a way to prove a point. ie: Your only proving something to those that would deem the same processes as valid. Abit like a homeopathic doctor vs. a western one - they both can prove to themselves their point but outside of their social and academic framework they're vunerable to scepticism.

Ultimately it's a chaotic battle between what lies outside the body, the perceptual systems we use to attempt to interpret them and the mind that distorts them to fall in line with learnt conventions. Since nothing can be said to be certain or understood than nothing can be said to be neccesary. Even the lack of neccesity isn't a neccisity - it'd simply be a different universe or at least a different understand of the same one.

At 1/15/11 06:57 PM, UnknownOne wrote:

At 1/15/11 03:30 AM, KemCab wrote: Anything that 'must exist' necessarily exists.

I kinda meant what is there that we percieve to have experienced, what we think we know about, that must exist, like 4 example that our personalities must exist.

Yeah, I know it was a matter of imprecision, which is why I also answered what I thought you meant.

But hey, some abstract things must exist, regardless of what we percieve, and everything. That's what I was really pointing to.

Even abstract things are a function of the material world. If no objects existed, how could you say numbers existed if there was no way to represent them? The existence of your personality, for example, is entirely dependent on the fact that you exist. You cannot say with certainty that you exist; you've already established that you can't know whether any material objects exist, and there is no reason to conclude that the 'self' is an immaterial construct.

Therefore you can make the same conclusions about abstract concepts that you can with material objects.

At 1/15/11 08:53 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: I think that its safe to assume that there must be a "machine" (as in a state-machine) somewhere, and that that machine exists. And that therefor the answer is yes. There must be something that necessarily exists.

So basically what you're saying is that the universe might just be running on some kind of Turing machine? If this machine existed somewhere, it would necessarily be outside of the universe, so you still couldn't know the existence of any of its individual components or how it works. The only aspect of this machine that would be apparent to us would be the physical laws that govern the universe, just as how you can't have any knowledge of what is actually going on inside your computer by simply staring at your screen.

And you still can't know whether or not anything in this universe exists. If no objects existed, no interactions or relationships could exist either.

This is a very vague question, but it seems to be most related to what one cannot doubt. Since you've seen The Matrix I suppose you have already imagined a scenario in which everything we experience is in reality false, nothing more than an illusion.
You can go further than this though, you can say that all your memories are false. You can also say that all the people you meet are nothing more than illusions. not real people, who think, and feel, and choose, but more like robots.

So even though it may seem a bit out there to imagine such things, it is still a possibility that we have no reason other than the fact that the ideas are strange to us to not believe them, but that they can be true is the point.

So is there anything that we can know for certain that is true? Something that we couldn't possibly doubt? WEll one of the best answers philosophers have arrived at implies that there is. If you are doubting can you doubt your doubt? It would be absurd to say that you can given that you would just be doubting more. Doubting is a form of thought, so you cannot doubt that you think without contradicting yourself. You must therefore, by necessity exist.
This is called Cogito Ergo Sum(I think therefore I am) This idea was popularized by a french philosopher named Rene Descartes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo _sum

It was later shown by the philosopher Hume that you don't actually have toe xist for "i think therefore I am" to exist, rather the only thing that has to exist is the thought "I am"

At 1/10/11 02:10 PM, UnknownOne wrote: I know this is not really political, but politics is the closest thing to philosophy on Newgrounds forums, lulz

Anyway, we're having a school project about The Matrix and existensialism. And we have 1 "hardcore thinking" task. What is there that MUST exist, regardless of what we sense, regardless of what we can reason out? What is there that must exist, which can be reasoned through logic and definition?

I'd like to see how the Newgrounds community will figure out this one...

or how someone will point out the pointlessness of this or come with some LOLz and jokes or off-topic stuff LOL

Dreams, they exist but our senses cant detect them :)
Is that the answer you were looking for?
Because there is no proven reason why we dream. and we cant really sense it

love, just kidding, uh, order, without it, we arnt really exeriencing anytyhing. order of the universe, order of nature, order of society, as mr popo would say, the pecking order, and the order within us , both emotionally and physically, if we cant keep order in our mind, we loose reality, and and existance follows shortly, and physically, well, duh.

Why must anything exist? Maybe nothing is true, maybe everything is true, even the lies. Those who climb towards the path of certainty face only their own insanity and no solution, thus the best thing to do is turn away from the question and accept things as they are, whether they are real or not.

At 1/16/11 01:43 PM, KemCab wrote: So basically what you're saying is that the universe might just be running on some kind of Turing machine? If this machine existed somewhere, it would necessarily be outside of the universe, so you still couldn't know the existence of any of its individual components or how it works. The only aspect of this machine that would be apparent to us would be the physical laws that govern the universe, just as how you can't have any knowledge of what is actually going on inside your computer by simply staring at your screen.

And you still can't know whether or not anything in this universe exists. If no objects existed, no interactions or relationships could exist either.

Pretty much, though of course I'm not imagining some extra-dimensional ribbon running off through the eons with a slider moving up and d own flipping bits (though it is possible). But, if the "language" is sufficient enough the interactions & relationships could be real enough to the observer.

Is any of this particularly useful? Not right now. Maybe with enough technology we'd be able to determine what the universe wasn't and use it to our advantage, or sort out the rules for our advantage as we've begun to do. On a personal level, though, the main thing you must do for your own sanity is accept some reality as your own. Sure, the universe could be a turing machine (and in some sense, probably is), but that's not going to matter in our day to day lives.

I make the comment every now and then that The Matrix never got it right. Inception did. You can never know whether you're part of the dream or the reality. You must make an assumption at some point that where you now exist is reality, or you're preferred reality. Cobb's acceptance of his reality at the end of the movie is the most important part. He's come to accept where he lives regardless of whether he's living 'on top.'

Oh, and the final useful rule for living, "Reality is the thing that keeps punching you in the face."

At 1/20/11 08:01 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: Pretty much, though of course I'm not imagining some extra-dimensional ribbon running off through the eons with a slider moving up and d own flipping bits (though it is possible).

Reminds me of this xkcd comic.

But, if the "language" is sufficient enough the interactions & relationships could be real enough to the observer.

For all purposes, we are the only observers, and since we are within this universe we must necessarily accept it as real. There isn't even a reason it should 'make sense' either. A dream is like a simulated reality; when in a dream, even though the situations are nonsensical, surreal or contrary to your real life experiences, you'd still have a hard time realizing that you were in a dream anyway.

Is any of this particularly useful? Not right now. Maybe with enough technology we'd be able to determine what the universe wasn't and use it to our advantage, or sort out the rules for our advantage as we've begun to do. On a personal level, though, the main thing you must do for your own sanity is accept some reality as your own. Sure, the universe could be a turing machine (and in some sense, probably is), but that's not going to matter in our day to day lives.

Even if we discover an entirely new universe (or an infinitude of them) there still isn't any way for us to know whether this reality is a "fiction," so there really isn't a point in dwelling about it. (The "new" universes would simply be a part of reality, however, not outside it.) The universe could be a computer simulation of a computer simulation of a computer simulation, ad infinitum, for all we know.

I make the comment every now and then that The Matrix never got it right. Inception did.

The only thing is that dream sequences in Inception were a lot more simpler than one might have expeceted.

At 1/21/11 06:09 AM, KemCab wrote:

At 1/20/11 08:01 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: Pretty much, though of course I'm not imagining some extra-dimensional ribbon running off through the eons with a slider moving up and d own flipping bits (though it is possible).

Reminds me of this xkcd comic.

Yeah, I've seen that before. :)

I almost linked to it.

I agree with you though.

The only thing is that dream sequences in Inception were a lot more simpler than one might have expeceted.

Yeah. No, as far as a movie goes, it could have been better. But it got the philosophy right. Which made me smile. And it made money, which made Nolan happy.

So if we go with Descartes' view:

"I am thinking, therefore I exist."

The 'I' seems problematic. Perhaps:

"Something is thinking, therefore something exists."

That all seems pretty concrete, so long as we assume that logic itself is valid.

Perspective must exist because it is the determinant of truth itself.