Ontology Introduction

[Skepdick]

The question was about proof, however.

It was about proof. And about a very particular claim. And you derailed it with a false analogy about a kitty.

Existence is not information. I was trying to provide a very brief explanation of the ontological question.

I say it is. As do very many physicists. Prove us wrong.

So I am asking you to prove the claim "existence is not information".
Which is very much nothing like the claim "kitty is in the closet".

The difference between the two is precisely verificationism.

There is no experiment/observation to be performed to verify that "existence is or is not information".

[RCSaunders]

There is no experiment/observation to be performed to verify that "existence is or is not information".

Do you fool many people with this stuff?

There is no experiment/observation to be performed to verify that "existence is or is not a delusion created by demons".

Real information is about what exists.

[Skepdick]

Real information is about what exists.

No. You are missing the mark again. Information is not ABOUT things.

Information IS. Ontological.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_information

Do you fool many people with this stuff?

Only physicists and people who understand that all truth is conceptual.

It's not a view that you have to agree with. But you can't deny its pragmatic utility while you live in the information age...

[RCSaunders]

Real information is about what exists.

No. You are missing the mark again. Information is not ABOUT things.

Information IS. Ontological.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_information

From, American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:

in·for·ma·tion (ĭn′fər-māshən)
n.
1. Knowledge or facts learned, especially about a certain subject or event. See Synonyms at knowledge.
2. The act of informing or the condition of being informed; communication of knowledge: Safety instructions are provided for the information of our passengers.
3. Computers Processed, stored, or transmitted data.
4. A numerical measure of the uncertainty of an experimental outcome.
5. Law A formal accusation of a crime made by a public officer rather than by grand jury indictment in instances in which the offense, if a federal crime, is not a fey or in which the offense, if a state crime, is allowed prosecution in that manner rather than by indictment.

You may use words any way you like. You are using information only with its third definition, al a Shannon and applied to other physical phenomena. The first two definitions are those most commonly meant and have nothing to do with the third.

I know you know this. I'm just spoiling your game.

Do you fool many people with this stuff?

Only physicists and people who understand that all truth is conceptual.

It's not a view that you have to agree with. But you can't deny its pragmatic utility while you live in the information age...

Oh I can definitely see the utility in it, and I'm sure you have fun using it. I appreciate that too.

[Skepdick]

The first two definitions are those most commonly meant and have nothing to do with the third.

Wanna bet? If information is ontological /physical then knowledge is just encoding/storage of acquired information in your brain's memory.

[RCSaunders]

The first two definitions are those most commonly meant and have nothing to do with the third.

Wanna bet?

No, I don't want to take your money. I don't believe in taking advantage of other's ignorance.

If information is ontological /physical ...

It's not!

[Skepdick]

If information is ontological /physical ...

It's not!

FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE

From my perspective - it is.

This simple, foundational assumption produces vastly different thought-patterns. Vastly different paradigms of 'understanding'.

It is embarrassing for somebody your own age to fail to take Perspectivism into account...
There are many possible conceptual schemes, or perspectives in which judgment of truth or value can be made. This is often taken to imply that no way of seeing the world can be taken as definitively "true"

It's embarrassing for you to not understand the implications of model-dependent realism.

It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist. It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything. The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model

[RCSaunders]

The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model[/b]

Oh, I love models, especially green-eyed gingers.

[Skepdick]

The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model[/b]

Oh, I love models, especially green-eyed gingers.

The taxonomy of ontology/epistemology/metaphysics - it's a model.

Not the only model.

[PeteJ]

Ontology is the branch of metaphysics which deals specifically with the nature of material existence.

Material existence is all that exists independently of anyone's knowledge or awareness.

Not quite. Ontology is the study of what exists, whether it be physical or mental. It does not take the existence of anything for granted and is not able to establish the mind-independent existence of anything.

I think what you're describing is 'Ontology for materialists'.

[Skepdick]

Ontology is the study of what exists, whether it be physical or mental.

Is your taxonomy all-exhaustive? Are physical and mental things "all that exists" ?

It does not take the existence of anything for granted

It doesn't have to if your taxonomy is all-exhaustive.

If physical and mental things are ALL that exists, then you can't give me an example of anything that DOES NOT exist.

[RCSaunders]

Ontology is the branch of metaphysics which deals specifically with the nature of material existence.

Material existence is all that exists independently of anyone's knowledge or awareness.

Not quite. Ontology is the study of what exists, whether it be physical or mental. It does not take the existence of anything for granted and is not able to establish the mind-independent existence of anything.

I think what you're describing is 'Ontology for materialists'.

The second paragraph reads:

Material existence is all that exists independently of anyone's knowledge or awareness. "Independent of" does not mean separate from, but, "whether or not anyone knows or is aware of that existence." Material existence includes what is usually referred to as, "physical existence," which is all that we can directly perceive and is the subject of the physical sciences. It also includes life, consciousness, and the human mind, which also exist independently of anyone's knowledge or awareness, but are not physical. (Of course no consiousness or mind exists independently of the one whose conciousness and mind they are.)

I have carefully defined what I mean by material existence. I do not equate physicalism and materialism and regard the physical a subset of the material. If by, 'Ontology for materialists,' you mean ontology for those who understand there is nothing mystical or supernatural behind existence and that existence is not contingent on anything else, you may call it that.

This article is only an, "Ontology Introduction." Subsequent articles, "The Nature Of Life," "The Nature Of Consciousness," "The Nature of Mind," and "An Analogy, From Physical To Mind," will address the other aspects of material existence.

I have introduced those articles in my latest article: "The Physical, Life, Consciousness, and The Human Mind—A Preface."

[RCSaunders]

... you can't give me an example of anything that DOES NOT exist.

From the mouth of Captain obvious.

Couldn't help it. Mea culpa.

You are right, though. There is nothing that does not exist, but everything does not exist in the same way. You and the tooth fairy both exist. See, "Metaphysics."

[Skepdick]

You are right, though. There is nothing that does not exist

Great! We have consensus. But now it begs the question: If everything exists, then why do we even need ontology?

but everything does not exist in the same way. You and the tooth fairy both exist.

Distinction without a difference.

What methodology would you resort to in order to learn about the existence of the tooth fairy?
What methodology would you resort to in order to learn about me?

[RCSaunders]

What methodology would you resort to in order to learn about the existence of the tooth fairy?
What methodology would you resort to in order to learn about me?

Are you serious? Actually, I'm not interested in learning any more than I already know about either.

[By "What methodology would you resort to in order to," do you mean, "how would you?"]