If there is some memory of it, it exists. If you are an adherent of the holographic model of the universe, you can say that it exists, if there is a holographic pattern of it.

To ask such a question seems to presuppose that there is only one "way" or "mode" of existence. Does an Boeing 747 exist in the same way the number three exists? What's the difference between the existence of a unicorn and a mountain, or an appointment and a lawn mower?

Tentatively, I would say that a characteristic of existence would be causal relevancy. To exist means to be a value in a causal sequence. Inert, motion-less, and undetectable beings don't exist - or at least they don't exist in the same way actual existants do. They're pure possibility, a contingency waiting to be understood and apprehended by another entity. They're "dead" in the sense that they are not an active part in the operation of the world and thus their existence is entirely redundant. What difference would it make if eleven unknown, causally inert existants existed instead of ten? There would be none, and it's also hard to see why they would exist to begin with.

But to ask for an "essence" of existence; well, this opens the door to the question of how essence exists. If there is something that makes existence what it is, then there has to be something "below" existence, something more primal and formal. If existence is seen like Play-Doh, then we can ask what Play-Doh is made of. Maybe there's something "less" than existence, but more likely I think is that existence is either a false predicate, or it's an irreducible complexity (it has parts that cannot be separated - re: Aristotelian hylomorphism, Piercean semiotic theory, hell, even OSR or something goofy-looking like that).

What Being is, the ontological question, has been an ongoing issue in metaphysics since its very origin, but one that has largely been ignored in favor of "weaker" ontic questions. What exists takes precedence over the question of existence itself.

If there is some memory of it, it exists. If you are an adherent of the holographic model of the universe, you can say that it exists, if there is a holographic pattern of it. — Rich

What do holograms have to do with whether something exists or not?

A holographic pattern within universal waves would be the defining aspect of existence, but one must first embrace the holographic model of the universe and memory.

https://youtu.be/RtuxTXEhj3A

I forgot to say that I haven't read any philosophy, so I'm not familiar with its vocabulary, so if it's possible, please use as less strange language as possible :D

For example, I don't know what any of these mean: holographic model of the universe, existence is either a false predicate, Aristotelian hylomorphism, Piercean semiotic theory, hell, even OSR

Existence as a false predicate comes from Kant. Aristotelian hylomorphism is the theory that substance (another esoteric term unfortunately) is made up of a two-part duality, Form and Matter. Peircean semiotic theory is a system of signs meant to help explain a lot of things. OSR = ontic structural realism, a theory in the philosophy of science.

If there is some memory of it, it exists — Rich

If there is no memory of something, it doesn't?



Thanks! I guess I'll have to read all these people to understand your answer :P

To ask such a question seems to presuppose that there is only one "way" or "mode" of existence. — darthbarracuda

I didn't want to imply something like that. So, are there different ways of existing? Do these ways have something in common?

Yes, if there is no memory of something anywhere it doesn't exist. One might say the universe is Memory.

I don't know what any of these mean: holographic model of the universe — mew

That's OK. Nobody else does either.

I didn't want to imply something like that. So, are there different ways of existing? Do these ways have something in common? — mew

There certainly are different ways of existing, in the sense of different sorts of arrangements and configurations and what have you. But the question remains: are all these different ways only ontically different? Are they unified ontologically?

What counts as memory though? For example, if there is a footprint somewhere but noone ever sees it, doesn't it exist? Is memory the same as thought?


:D

But the question remains: are all these different ways only ontically different? Are they unified ontologically? — darthbarracuda

I'm afraid I don't understand the question :s

In my frame of understanding things, Memory would be a holographic imprint which is embedded in the fabric of the Universe. Yes, thought would be involved since it is the reference wave that observes the Memory but thought had to be considered in its most extended meaning. Stephen Robbins provides the most accessible explanation that Bohm presented his speculative version in his writings which he discussed the Undivided Universe.

While it may be overwhelming, if you visited google scholar you will find references to scholarly work concerning a holographic universe.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=holographic+universe+theory&lr=lang_en&as_sdt=1%2C33&oq=holographic+universe

Here is a list of things that exist.

Mew (the actual person who is represented by "Mew" and her avatar).
The tree outside your window
The number 3 (or 2, 1, 356, etc.)
Jupiter (the god)
Jupiter (the planet)
Galaxies that are too far away for us to see
Sub-atomic particles that are too small to see
The Wizard of Oz


As you see, the list includes things that are physically substantial and real (like you, the tree, the planet Jupiter); concepts like numbers; things that are too small or too far away to see, but which existence can be inferred (sub-atomic particles and the first galaxies); things like the god Jupiter and the Wizard of Oz -- who have existed only as religious or literary figures.

The verb "to exist" covers all of these, but "to exist" doesn't make the insubstantial "material". No one will ever run into Baum's Wizard of Oz anywhere, ever. But the Wizard of Oz is still a "real literary creation" which exists.

Make sense?

Thank you!

Can we say then that the insubstantial is unreal? Or is it just immaterial?

You are quite welcome. Good luck on your research on this topic.

A good answer is that to exist is to be the subject of a predicate - that is, roughly, to exist is to be spoken of.

So Santa Exists.

I'm afraid I don't understand the question :s — mew

Analogy: there are different sorts of noodles. But are all noodles made of the same thing?

Similarly, there are cars and people and numbers and mountains. Are they all "unified' in the sense that they all exist in the same fundamental ontological way?

A holographic pattern within universal waves would be the defining aspect of existence, but one must first embrace the holographic model of the universe and memory. — Rich

I see, a pattern within universal waves that happens to be holographic defines existence.

Where does one encounter these waves, and how does one tell that a pattern within them is holographic?

Are they all "unified' in the sense that they all exist in the same fundamental ontological way? — darthbarracuda

While I agree that this is the question being asked, I think it is the wrong question to ask.

It looks like it is reifying existence - treating it as a first order predication. It isn't.

Are they all "unified' in the sense that they all exist in the same fundamental ontological way? — darthbarracuda

I don't know!!! What Banno said, "to exist is to be spoken of", seems similar to what Rich said, "If there is some memory of it, it exists". So, the Wizard of Oz exists. You said that to exist is to be causally relevant. Would you say that a literary character can be causally relevant?

I don't know!!! — mew

Welcome to philosophy! ;)

I'm also reading a book which says that causes do not exist! Patterns exist. If causes do not exist, then to exist is not to be causally relevant. If we accept patterns exist instead of causes, would it make sense to say that to exist is to be part of a pattern?

What book?

I'm also reading a book which says that causes do not exist! Patterns exist. If causes do not exist, then to exist is not to be causally relevant. If we accept patterns exist instead of causes, would it make sense to say that to exist is to be part of a pattern? — mew

Is that David Hume's "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding" (1739)?

I'm talking about Sean Carroll's "The Big Picture".

Everything would be holographic.

Everything would be holographic. — Rich

How can a wave have a holographic pattern inside it?