[luke warm]

Winstonm, on 2011-November-18, 14:23, said:

Only objects (shape + location) could be stated unequivocably [sic] to exist...

i doubt this is true, but i admit it has a certain attraction for materialists

[Winstonm]

luke warm, on 2011-November-18, 16:36, said:

i doubt this is true, but i admit it has a certain attraction for materialists

I might agree if there were a consistent meaning of "truth".

[gwnn]

phil_20686, on 2011-November-17, 08:58, said:

The purpose of a definition is that is should be generally applicable and should avoid absurdities. It seems to me that your definition leads to an absurdity whenever it is applied to something where the future is highly uncertain - e.g. the "value" of a scientific discovery.

Moreover, your definition also runs into problems in other areas - if you applied it with a very short time horizon then unconsciousness would be the same as a Permanent Vegetative State. Moreover, your definition seems to have no principle by which to determine an appropriate time horizon, beyond "If I can reasonably predict it", but many things in life cannot be reasonably predicted even a short time in advance.

While my own definition is not completely problem free, it seems to be much better than the present orientated one that you suggest.

My definition was 'it is worth as much as it can be sold for'. Obviously it is only applicable to things that are possible to be sold (it does not serve to answer questions like "what is more valuable, fidelity or courage?"). Your definition, is the one that leads to an absurdity whenever it is applied to something where the future is highly uncertain. Your definition is the one that is inapplicable, unless the thing in question has ceased to exist (so that we don't need to predict anything). Maybe I'm still misunderstanding you.

[PassedOut]

Winstonm, on 2011-November-18, 14:23, said:

Beauty would automatically fall into the subjective category. Only objects (shape + location) could be stated unequivocably to exist, and the reason is not sentience but that objects can be reasoned to have existed prior to sentience.

I agree with you about beauty, although I now understand why Phil thinks otherwise. However, I find your restictions on existence to be unnecessarily inconvenient. For example, we quite properly say things like, "There exists at least one real number such that..."

[Winstonm]

PassedOut, on 2011-November-19, 08:27, said:

I agree with you about beauty, although I now understand why Phil thinks otherwise. However, I find your restictions on existence to be unnecessarily inconvenient. For example, we quite properly say things like, "There exists at least one real number such that..."

Sure, in everyday common speech we say many things that are ambiguous. But when we attempt to be precise, the circumstance calls for a tighter definition of key terms. I have seen it argued that once the word "exists" is used, the province changes from philosophy to physics, from proofs to explanations.