We can regiment the contingency of existence intuition as followings, letting A be the actuality operator, where A φ is true with respect to a world w under an interpretation I just in case φ is true with respect to the distinguished world of I: ∃x¬ A ∃y(y=x). Call this sentence Alien. The worry is that the truth of Alien carries ...
The types of things that logic allows us to prove are really like templates for arguments "if a then b", logic by itself doesn't really tell you anything about concrete facts that are detached from any assumptions. Logic can't in general prove that something exists by itself. Therefore most logical arguments in philosophy involve premises.
You can't prove that [X] doesn't exist. So it's irrational to believe that [X] doesn't exist. But statement (1) is only plausible if by "prove" we understand the former of these two ideas: (i) having a good reason to believe that [X] doesn't exist. While (2) is only plausible if by "prove" we understand the latter of these two ideas: (ii) [X ...
So, as we can see, the argument that something does not exist until it is proven to exist is a false claim. Not only is it a false claim, but it is an easily dismissible and debunkable claim. Both in the existential and the epistemological sense. There is also no support for the claim that it is the default position.
We’ve established this by showing the logical contradiction of holding the contrary position. In other words, we’ve already identified a truth that we can know for certain: “absolute truth exists.” What we can know: Absolute truth exists, and is knowable. Step 3: Answering Scientific Materialism
For example, we can prove that something exists using natural deduction as follows: 1. (∀x)(x = x) axiom of identity 2. a = a 1, universal instantiation 3. (∃x)(x = a) 2, existential generalisation This proves that some thing exists, that we have chosen to call 'a'. We could choose to formulate a logic that does not permit this inference ...
Maybe we can abstract it out to say that there has to be some kind of hardware. As far as I can tell, I haven’t yet managed to experience anything consciously without a functioning something. Let’s pause for a second here and clarify something. When I say “we can’t prove that it exists”, I don’t mean that “I don’t believe it ...
After all, when they cross the street on the way to work, they tend to accept implicitly – as we all do – that there is an external reality that exists independently of our observations of it.
The question of whether science can actually prove something has sparked a heated debate among philosophers, scientists, and scholars for decades. At its core, the issue revolves around the notion of proof itself – what does it mean to prove something, and can science provide irrefutable evidence? ... Climate change: Can we be certain that ...
In some areas of mathematics it is everyday practice to prove the existence of things by entirely non-constructive arguments that say nothing about the object in question other than it exists, e.g. the celebrated probabilistic method and many things found in this thread: What are some things we can prove they must exist, but have no idea what they are?
G.E. Moore: 1938. I wish to direct attention towards the notion of extreme scepticism, which is concerned with the existence of the external world, and if it is actually possible for us to know ...
In the end, yes, we can claim "we know something exists" because we can observe/infer it directly or indirectly and our existing theories don't explain how this thing is possible. And once we have the theory about the thing we thought we knew existed it might as well cease to exist.
“The brain is a system that is continually trying to prove its own existence,” says Metzinger. He thinks this prediction machinery might be compromised in people with Cotard’s.
Can there be such a proof? Brilliant philosophers, from Anselm, through Aquinas, through Descartes, through contemporary intellectuals like Charles Hartshorne, submit that the existence of God can be proven through rational argument. Except, except, a lot depends upon what exactly we mean by the word “prove”. How do we prove something?
At no point are we given a formula for the quantity we seek, and the result is perhaps not as satisfying as we would like. In general, then, try to be specific when doing an existence proof, but if you cannot, it may still be possible to construct an example using some other existence result or another technique of proof.
There exist multiple ways to describe that something exists. It depends on what we want to exist : A physical object that exists because it's composed of matter or energy. The main argument is that "it's just there". Example : "This apple exists." An immaterial object like an idea or a concept.
An astronomer breaks down 3 key components that allow researchers to make groundbreaking discoveries – and decide when results aren’t significant.
