On ''what there is''


The question looks ''philosophical'' in the sense of ''what exist?''. In the old terminology ''ontology question''.
The modern formulation (by Quine) is: ''what are the values of your variables''? In our hobby ''what are
the new available components''?  Can one person know what are available components? Obviously not
but we have ''collective knowledge''. Each contribution is welcome. Like in science. But like in science there
are individuals with special contributions. Raul with his MM contributions and his ''successor'' chakster
with his contributions about ''both kinds'': MC's and MM's. Despite his ''modest means''. I think we should
be thankful to have such individuals.
128x128nandric
''The issue of existence'' is the same as ''what there is''.
The case of Higgs particles may enlighten the problem.
Higgs invented ''boson particle'' in order to improve the
theory. So every particle physicist knew what ''boson
particle means'' (in the sense of contribution to the theory)
but nobody knew if this particle EXIST. So we in Europe
have build 27 km long particle accelerator in Cern to prove
or refute the existence of Higgs particle. After proving the
existence of this particle the theory was saved. Because
success is rewording the new accelerator of 100 km length
will be build costing 23 billion euro's. 
Such proves are not known in relation to existence of God. 
Those are always verbal. One should discriminate between
talking about language (aka ''meaning'') and extra linguistic
reality. Pegasus or unicorns are linguistic but if one want to
hunt unicorns in Africa or fly on Pegasus I wish them success. 
BTW the lack of knowledge by ''some'' members is disturbing. 






It is easy to claim common place fact like unicorn dont exist but Higgs boson exist by the proven construct of Cern detector...

And very easy to say common place fact like: "One should discriminate between
talking about language (aka ’’meaning’’) and extra linguistic
reality."

Typical second rate nominalism will not be enough though.... (If you cant understand Goethe try Charles Sanders Peirce to understand why nominalism is not enough)

Man is not a "tabula rasa" as think people like behaviorists Skinner or Quine when they speak of language acquisition...

Cassirer explain very deeply after Buhler why symbolic competence is behind consciousness speech act and any human activity ...

I suggest Chomsky to correct your Quinean view of language, if Peirce, Buhler, or Cassirer are too "heavy" for you ...

For example : P.Swiggers: "How Chomsky skinned Quine"



"BTW the lack of knowledge by ’’some’’ members is disturbing. "


Perhaps it is my posts which pointed toward something that is not "common place" and trivial fact like yours...

Perhaps it is you who dont understand them at all.... Because for example language cannot be understood only by this childish evident distinction between external meaning and an external object... Study one of the greatest linguist of the century : Gustave Guillaume...If you dont read french try Karl Buhler...

Perhaps there is also something called " consciousness" which is not the product of matter or linguistic playing....

Read Goethe and learn about it....If you dont understand Goethe try Husserl Or Cassirer...
I will be here to help you...

I will recommend to you a physicist who wrote many books about Goethe because instead of insulting people about their alleged ignorance i prefer to help them...

Henry Bortoft....
I think there is a lot of drunk posting on this one.
 I am always drunk when i listen to music, and i always listen music when i post here....

😊
I read some of the works referenced in this thread. Well over my head. 

Where does the thing we refer to as our ‘spirit’ originate? That always puzzles me.