• ucarr
    1.9k
    Existence and reality are distinct realms. Existence, being the larger realm, houses reality, the smaller realm. The two realms overlap in terms of the raw physics of existence. Reality is the transformation of existence space, characterized by computable causation space with its interactions, measurements and results, into meaning space, characterized by the perishability/survivability axis of living organisms.

    One of the essentials of meaning is consequence. It separates reality from existence as expressed by the difference between a change that can transformation, amplify, diminish or destroy and a change that merely terminates in an indifferent result. The absence or presence of life determines whether causation has consequences forward directed, or merely results indifferent.

    On a planet sans living organisms there's a boulder atop a hill. The planet has atmosphere, so a strong wind pushes against the boulder and sets it into motion rolling down the hill. Eventually, the boulder reaches the bottom of the hill and finally comes to rest on level ground. The resting place of the boulder is a result. Imagine now another example of the same hill and gust of strong wind with the boulder rolling down the hill and smashing together with a moving car when they intersect. It's all the same logic and causation making the boulder roll down the hill. The big however is fact that driver of the car gets killed by the impact. That's not a result. That's a consequence with forward direction in memory and behavior of affected sentients. Cops show up; likewise ambulance, eventually next of kin and finally the hearse. The driver's young children won't be seeing father tonight, or any other night.

    In general, I'm saying reality is an interpretation of physics by living organisms. The label for the
    interpretation is reality. Physical things exist. Living organisms and their experiences vis-á-vis physics are real. Reality is therefore a scalable meaning space numerator defined in terms of its denominator, survivability/perishability.

    Throughput in the reality of sentient-mediated space is change that impacts identity as transformation, amplification, loss or destruction. This type of change in reference to sentient identity persistence coalesces as meaning.
  • 180 Proof
    16.4k
    Existence, being the larger realm, houses reality, the smaller realm.ucarr
    This seems to me ontologically backwards – existence (encompassed presence (fluctuating)) presupposes reality (un-encompassed absence (vacuum)), in so far as (re: Spinoza ... Democritus-Epicurus ... Nagarjuna) the latter corresponds to necessity (~R = contradiction) and the former to contingency (~E(x) =/= contradiction). :chin:
  • kindred
    246
    Existence and reality are distinct realmsucarr

    Why can’t they be the same thing ? Non-existence of reality is impossible otherwise we would not be here to ask questions or even exist. The bigger question of course is what is existence? And why is it that rather than non-existence or nothing.
  • J
    2.5k
    Existence and reality are distinct realms. Existence, being the larger realm, houses reality, the smaller realm.ucarr

    reality is an interpretation of physics by living organisms. The label for the
    interpretation is reality. Physical things exist. Living organisms and their experiences vis-á-vis physics are real.
    ucarr

    These are interesting positions to take. Do you intend the various statements to be truth-apt? If so, how would one go about demonstrating the truth -- or falsity -- of any one of them? Or are they only meant to be internally consistent, like a puzzle that fits together?
  • ucarr
    1.9k


    Why can’t they be the same thing ?kindred

    They share common ground given that all of reality is housed within existence. This tells us that a part of existence is overlapped by sentience-mediated reality. Humans, being within the reality space, experience existence as an interpretation of physics structured by self-interest. In a world without life, a boulder rolling downhill is part of a causal chain that obeys ontological laws, but there's reversibility and there's no memory, so, no meaning. In a world with life the rolling boulder immediately means danger.
  • ucarr
    1.9k


    Do you intend the various statements to be truth-apt?J

    Yes. Since humans normally call instantiated things real, and they normally think of real things as being existent, then it matters whether or not real things and existent things are distinct. In the smaller space of sentience-based reality, existent things are not only dynamical, they’re also meaningful. In contrast, dynamical things apart from living organisms are not meaningful because they have no irreversible commitment to going forward in time under constraints that compel them to posit their presence in the face of a constant threat of destruction.
  • J
    2.5k
    it matters whether or not real things and existent things are distinctucarr

    OK. My question, then, was: How would we figure out if what you (or anyone) says about real things and existent things is true?

    You say, "Existence is larger than reality." Philosopher Q replies, "No, reality is larger than existence." How should the debate proceed from there? Or if you prefer to put it in Popperian terms: What could falsify either of the competing statements?
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.