What exists is what causal power. Fairies exist as ideas and ideas have causal power. Square trianges are impossible to even imagine and therefore only exist as a string of visual symbols, or words. Contradictions are ideas that exist and have causal power too.If we formulate existence as a property of objects, then we must either admit that all objects exist, including fairies and square triangles, or we must allow non-existent objects into our ontology. Both of these options are counter-intuitive, and they both lead to problems. — Dusty of Sky
What exists is what causal power. Fairies exist as ideas and ideas have causal power. Square trianges are impossible to even imagine and therefore only exist as a string of visual symbols, or words. Contradictions are ideas that exist and have causal power too. — Harry Hindu
There are no such things as non-existent entities. Is that not what it means to be non-existent? Non-existent entities cannot form causal relationships. Non-existent entities is an idea and has causal power. Remember that I said that contradictions exist and have causal power.So is existence a property with the same definition as causal power? And does causal power mean the potential to cause events or actual interaction in causal phenomena? If an effect is caused but is not itself capable of causing anything, does that effect exist? If it doesn't, then how do you deal with the problem on non-existent entities? — Dusty of Sky
I can't think of any effect that isn't also a cause. The effect exists and therefore is capable of forming new causal relationships. Everything that exists has the potential to interact causally. — Harry Hindu
This is the same thing that someone else said in another thread. We observe causation all the time - even participate in it ourselves. How do you explain communication without causation?My main problem the idea that existence is causal power is that causal power can't be observed. So different philosophers have different approaches to explaining what it is and how it works. For instance, some think causal power resides in particular entities, whereas others (including Russel, I think) believe it comes from universal laws which govern the behavior of entities.
But I think we can directly observe that things exist. For instance, if I hear a noise, I can conclude that the noise exists. I don't need to know what causal power is behind the noise appearing in my experience. — Dusty of Sky
If no one has ever observed causation, then what is it that we're missing? What would proof of causation look like? — Harry Hindu
Isn't causation alike? — BrianW
If we formulate existence as a property of objects, then we must either admit that all objects exist, including fairies and square triangles, or we must allow non-existent objects into our ontology. — Dusty of Sky
That sounds like a confusion of ontology and epistemology. Things exist irrespective of whether anyone has experienced, and labelled, them. Things have their intrinsic properties irrespective of whether minds have identified those properties and irrespective of their subjective experiences of those things.Things do not 'exist' in their own right , they are functional focal experiences (or potential experiences) which have been labelled — fresco
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.