What Exists? No, Really.

[Pyrotex]

Have you read any Korzybski?

[lawcat]

Yes, and your explanation is a better and more sufficient synthesis of his ideas, which are first and foremost criticism and break from classical philosophy and a call for scientific rigour in ethics. The distinction between map and territory is a great starting point to understanding. The logical extension of Your Korzybski is that we are only a set of beliefs, since the territory includes everything outside the map, and our physical body is outside the map.

Nonethless, the question was what exists.

I would say that the only thing we can be certain about is that uncertainty exists. Nontheless, we can predict to a high degree of certainty that something exists, and will exist, because it existed not too relatively-long ago. If we perceive it or can measure it, and if our measurement and perception is limited by velocity of information, then we receive information about existence in delay. If information is delayed, then the only thing we can be certain about is the past.
I'd like to combine Descartes, Sartre and today's science and say: "I perceive or measure it, threfore it was." To the extent that I must imply about the existence of something from past information, I am uncertain to some degree about its present state. Therefore, in time, only uncertainty is certain to exist.

[watcher]

Originally Posted by lawcat

Therefore, in time, only uncertanty is certain to exists.

thanks for clarity, lawcat.
given my low level of comprehension, now i can reply to this thread.

given the uncertainty to know for sure what exists not only due to delayed info but also to the way it presents itself to us, i think the word unknowable is more fitting to describe what exists really. the end of ontology is to know for certain that it is unknowable. there lies the peace of the philosopher.

the ancient called it spirit. don't be alarmed by the use of the word in a science thread. it is only the religious way of saying i don't know but we have to call it something. hehe

[lawcat]

I apologize if I offended your intelligence. I certainly did not intend to.

The question was what exists. I simply stated that we can only talk about degrees of certainty in existence; and degrees of certainty imply existence of uncertainty.

[watcher]

Originally Posted by lawcat

I appologize if I offended your intelligence. I certainly did not intend to.

haha don't be. i always admire those who post with minimum connotations.
ya know, like you can't pass one sentence without clicking wikipedia,

The question was what exists. I simply stated that we can only talk about degrees of certainty in existence; and degrees of certainty imply existence of uncertainty.

i was agreeing with you. i merely stretched the implication of uncertainty in existence.

[lawcat]

Our knowledge of existence is only limited by time, and since time effects movement, decay, state of all objects, then we can not be certain of anything which time effects. But, if we can be certain of something, then time has no effect on it. Once we find that which time has no effect on, we can compare it to the most similar thing which we observe that time has effect on. Then, we can comparatively deduce what effects of time are and what time is.

[watcher]

Originally Posted by lawcat

Our knowledge of existence is only limited by time, and since time effects movement, decay, state of all objects, then we can not be certain of anything which time effects. But, if we can be certain of something, then time has no effect on it. Once we find that which time has no effect on, we can compare it to the most similar thing which we observe that time has effect on. Then, we can comparatively deduce what effects of time are and what time is.

i can run with that.

[lawcat]

Then, would you say that we are certain about coordinates x, y, z, in space? These are arbitrary, static, references that are always there regardless of what is occuring there.

[watcher]

space may not have a specific geometry but nonetheless, xyz coordinates are mental construct. its being always out there arbitrarily is just an imagination.

[lawcat]

Imagination of lines it is, for we have to create some mental picture of it to describe it. But would you say that a three dimensional cube bound by coordinates is always there where it is, regardless of what goes on inside, or what goes through it as far as matter or antimatter, or what space consists of? The coordinates would always be there, even if all of space was empty.