Search ideas

You mean to the question of existence, or in general? Cuz in general I’d think of it as a criticism.

(Logan Chipkin)

Since you agree (#539) that logic is part of philosophy, the law of the excluded middle should satisfy you as a philosophical answer, no?

Yes (Logan Chipkin)

Is logic part of philosophy?

Good point - philosophy, then.

(Logan Chipkin)

Doesn’t physics presume the existence of physical objects and laws? Ie it presumes the existence of something physical. So it presumes existence itself. In which case physics can’t be the arbiter here.

I would think that the solution comes either from physics or from philosophy that comes out of some physical theory.

(Logan Chipkin)

That’s not a counterargument - so maybe that’s it, after all.

(Logan Chipkin)

I would be amazed if that is why there is something rather than nothing.

(Logan Chipkin)

If non-existence is to mean anything at all, I think that’s it, yes.

Btw I do sometimes wonder if the problem of explaining why there’s something rather than nothing is connected to the fact that there’s a difference between Platonic reality and physical reality.

(Logan Chipkin)

Is non-existence really existing if there’s nothing at all?

(Logan Chipkin)

I don’t mean it as a word game, I mean it literally.

I think that’s just a word game.

(Logan Chipkin)

Well non-existence, by definition, can’t exist, right?

Superseded by #525. This comment was generated automatically.

I don’t see why nonexistence cannot also be a logical possibility.

If nonexistence is logically possible, and existence is logically possible, we need to explain why the latter has been physicalized in the first place.

(Logan Chipkin)

Sorry yes

(Logan Chipkin)

The latter?

I don’t see why nonexistence cannot also be a logical possibility.

If nonexistence is logically possible, and existence is logically possible, we need to explain why the former has been physicalized in the first place.

(Logan Chipkin)

What do you think of: it’s the law of the excluded middle that causes the universe to exist. Nothing can’t exist, so the only alternative that’s left is for something to exist.

Yes. Which doesn’t problematize most of her other ideas, fortunately.

But my guess is that any false idea could, if not corrected, result in humanity’s demise. So, should any of Rand’s ideas spread to fixation, we could have her to thank for going the way of the dodo.

Of course the fact that this ‘existence as foundationalism’ idea does not problematize her other ideas goes both ways - opponents of Objectivism cannot appeal to that idea as a wholesale refutation of Objectivism.

(Logan Chipkin)

Yes. Which doesn’t problematize most of her other ideas, fortunately.

But my guess is that any false idea could, if not corrected, result in humanity’s demise. So, should all of Rand’s ideas spread to fixation, we could have her to thank for going the way of the dodo.

Of course the fact that this ‘exist as foundationalism’ idea does not problematize her other ideas goes both ways - opponents of Objectivism cannot appeal to that idea as a wholesale refutation of Objectivism.

(Logan Chipkin)

Sounds like she treats existence as an ultimate bedrock. Foundationalism.

I disagree. Existence is something to be explained.

(Logan Chipkin)