What does it mean "to Exist"?

[mickthinks]

I know a little about modern physics; enough to know that science in general, and physics in particular, does not concern itself with the question "What does it mean to exist?".

[Obvious Leo]

I know a little about modern physics; enough to know that science in general, and physics in particular, does not concern itself with the question "What does it mean to exist?".

You're quite right, mick. Physics does not concern itself with this question at all. Considering the fact that the current models of physics describe a universe which makes no sense do you not regard this as something of a problem?

[mickthinks]

I think it is an interesting challenge for philosophy to tackle. I don't see it's any problem for science.

[Obvious Leo]

I don't see it's any problem for science.

You don't think nonsensical models of reality are a problem for science? Luckily the physicists are disinclined to agree with you.

[mickthinks]

Are they though? Physicists may be as interested as the rest of us in the philosophical problem. That doesn't mean they are trying to solve it in their laboratories and observatories, which is the only kind of activity that counts as "scientific concern".

[Obvious Leo]

That doesn't mean they are trying to solve it in their laboratories and observatories, which is the only kind of activity that counts as "scientific concern".

Since physics hasn't made a lick of sense for well over a century now, on a scale of 1-10 how well would you say this policy has been working out for them?

Perhaps making a distinction between what exists and what doesn't exist isn't such a stupid idea after all.

[mickthinks]

You mean in the time they've developed the computer, landed people on the moon, discovered the Higgs Boson, detected gravity waves, ...

I'd say it's working out just fine. What in your opinion have scientists failed to achieve that would have been achieved if they had spent more time thinking about what existence is?

[Obvious Leo]

What in your opinion have scientists failed to achieve that would have been achieved if they had spent more time thinking about what existence is?

This question is impossible to answer but having models of physics which make sense would be a significant improvement over continuing to get by with those that don't.

[JSS]

I'd say it's working out just fine. What in your opinion have scientists failed to achieve that would have been achieved if they had spent more time thinking about what existence is?

Coherency - one of the three requirements for Truth.
The other two being comprehensiveness and relevance. Both of which would also be immediately apparent, merely by attending to exactly what the nature of the existence is before they espouse and proclaim egocentric supreme knowledge of what is and then have to defend their ego for centuries.

Quantum physicists argue with relativists who argue with Newtonians, who all argue with me.
Obviously someone isn't right.

[Walker]

Since we can say that only existence is, while non-existence is a figment of imagination, then existence of any particular thing is a differentiation of existence (all that is) made possible by movement. A moving hunter sees a still cornfield next to a still forest and himself stops moving. The next movement within perception delineates existence. Maybe it will be movement of mind, indicating existence of thought. Maybe it will be movement of a corn leaf indicating a breeze. Maybe the next movement will be a deer indicating existence of dinner, or the movement of light reflecting from a deer. Movement causes differentiated existence from all that exists, which is all there is, though thought or not the raindrop still exists in the ocean.

[Dalek Prime]

Since we can say that only existence is, while non-existence is a figment of imagination, then existence of any particular thing is a differentiation of existence (all that is) made possible by movement. A moving hunter sees a still cornfield next to a still forest and himself stops moving. The next movement within perception delineates existence. Maybe it will be movement of mind, indicating existence of thought. Maybe it will be movement of a corn leaf indicating a breeze. Maybe the next movement will be a deer indicating existence of dinner, or the movement of light reflecting from a deer. Movement causes differentiated existence from all that exists, which is all there is, though thought or not the raindrop still exists in the ocean.

I think it is safer to differentiate between existence and consciousness, and talk about only one thing at a time. Consciousness is a subset of existence. Higher up, self-awareness is a subset of consciousness.

[Walker]

Since we can say that only existence is, while non-existence is a figment of imagination, then existence of any particular thing is a differentiation of existence (all that is) made possible by movement. A moving hunter sees a still cornfield next to a still forest and himself stops moving. The next movement within perception delineates existence. Maybe it will be movement of mind, indicating existence of thought. Maybe it will be movement of a corn leaf indicating a breeze. Maybe the next movement will be a deer indicating existence of dinner, or the movement of light reflecting from a deer. Movement causes differentiated existence from all that exists, which is all there is, though thought or not the raindrop still exists in the ocean.

I think it is safer to differentiate between existence and consciousness, and talk about only one thing at a time. Consciousness is a subset of existence. Higher up, self-awareness is a subset of consciousness.

Well I was just thinking about that very thing in terms of affectance, and about how the aether of ubiquitous awareness forms in varying degrees into inorganic and organic density, some of which forms a proper environment for consciousness to coalesce undifferentiated reality into the duality required for interactive, relationship-type existence of a conscious entity. Although, note that consciousness, which is the means by which awareness becomes dualistic knowing of subject and object, always requires form, whether or not that form is detectable by man due to limitations of incarnation, perception, or apprehension.

[JSS]

Existence (from Merriam-Webster online dictionary)

2a : the state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence <the existence of other worlds>

[Obvious Leo]

Quantum physicists argue with relativists who argue with Newtonians, who all argue with me.
Obviously someone isn't right.

The relativists have got the best story but they've got it arse-about. If they made space relative to time instead of time relative to space then all their paradoxes and metaphysical absurdities would vanish in a blink. Thereafter the quantum geeks would finally make sense and the Newtonians would disappear into the pages of science history.

You'd have nobody left to argue with except me and we're not actually arguing. We're just telling rather similar stories in a totally different way.

[Obvious Leo]

In applied metaphysics that which exists is that which can be said to be in a state of Being. Note the tense of the verb "to be" in this statement.