all it takes for something to exist is...

Very nice thread catefrances, very interesting.

http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Identity.html

A is A: Aristotle's Law of Identity
Everything that exists has a specific nature. Each entity exists as something in particular and it has characteristics that are a part of what it is. "This leaf is red, solid, dry, rough, and flammable." "This book is white, and has 312 pages." "This coin is round, dense, smooth, and has a picture on it." In all three of these cases we are referring to an entity with a specific identity; the particular type of identity, or the trait discussed, is not important. Their identities include all of their features, not just those mentioned.

Identity is the concept that refers to this aspect of existence; the aspect of existing as something in particular, with specific characteristics. An entity without an identity cannot exist because it would be nothing. To exist is to exist as something, and that means to exist with a particular identity.

To have an identity means to have a single identity; an object cannot have two identities. A tree cannot be a telephone, and a dog cannot be a cat. Each entity exists as something specific, its identity is particular, and it cannot exist as something else. An entity can have more than one characteristic, but any characteristic it has is a part of its identity. A car can be both blue and red, but not at the same time or not in the same respect. Whatever portion is blue cannot be red at the same time, in the same way. Half the car can be red, and the other half blue. But the whole car can't be both red and blue. These two traits, blue and red, each have single, particular identities.

The concept of identity is important because it makes explicit that reality has a definite nature. Since reality has an identity, it is knowable. Since it exists in a particular way, it has no contradictions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_identity

farfromglorified wrote:

http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Identity.html

A is A: Aristotle's Law of Identity
Everything that exists has a specific nature. Each entity exists as something in particular and it has characteristics that are a part of what it is. "This leaf is red, solid, dry, rough, and flammable." "This book is white, and has 312 pages." "This coin is round, dense, smooth, and has a picture on it." In all three of these cases we are referring to an entity with a specific identity; the particular type of identity, or the trait discussed, is not important. Their identities include all of their features, not just those mentioned.

Identity is the concept that refers to this aspect of existence; the aspect of existing as something in particular, with specific characteristics. An entity without an identity cannot exist because it would be nothing. To exist is to exist as something, and that means to exist with a particular identity.

To have an identity means to have a single identity; an object cannot have two identities. A tree cannot be a telephone, and a dog cannot be a cat. Each entity exists as something specific, its identity is particular, and it cannot exist as something else. An entity can have more than one characteristic, but any characteristic it has is a part of its identity. A car can be both blue and red, but not at the same time or not in the same respect. Whatever portion is blue cannot be red at the same time, in the same way. Half the car can be red, and the other half blue. But the whole car can't be both red and blue. These two traits, blue and red, each have single, particular identities.

The concept of identity is important because it makes explicit that reality has a definite nature. Since reality has an identity, it is knowable. Since it exists in a particular way, it has no contradictions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_identity

Well, that's one view. And then we have Platos view: "Plato's Theory of Forms indicates that the sensory world that is the reality which we as human beings experience, is only a shadow of a higher realm. In this higher realm, Plato assures us that there exist the Forms that embody the true nature of the pale shadows. What we know as sweet is only an afterimage of the Form of Sweetness. The luminous brightness of the sun is only a corporeal display of the Form of Brightness."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato

angelica wrote:

Well, that's one view. And then we have Platos view: "Plato's Theory of Forms indicates that the sensory world that is the reality which we as human beings experience, is only a shadow of a higher realm. In this higher realm, Plato assures us that there exist the Forms that embody the true nature of the pale shadows. What we know as sweet is only an afterimage of the Form of Sweetness. The luminous brightness of the sun is only a corporeal display of the Form of Brightness."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato

Here's the problem with this. Plato is saying that this shadow world cannot be perceived, yet at the same time saying it exists. That would require a very troubling axiom: definition independent of perception. While reality may certainly exist beyond perception, definition requires perception. So beware the mystic that tells you about something defined only by an inability to define it.

Plato's "higher realm" is little more than philosophical speak for God. And while one cannot disprove a "higher realm" (disproof requires perception as much as proof does), one cannot prove it either. One either takes it on faith, or one discards it on faith. And plausibility cannot prove existence.

onelongsong wrote:

in my reality (and that of thousands living in the area); it's very much as it was in 1885. sure we have satellite tv and internet. and we use solar power to generate our electricity; but we still carry guns and protect our property and basically live the lifestyle of the 1880's. if i feel the need to go somewhere; i saddle up my horse. tourists are always coming to see this reality. you can look to the amish and see their reality. here's a great mass of people living a different reality. their world is as real as ours.
it is 72F here and that is reality. that is true. it in no way crosses over to false. that is reality NOW. but reality is constantly changing.
reality's boundries are the mind. we can be in the same room yet i can feel warm while you feel cold. so which is real? a third party walks in and is comfortable. that's 3 different realities in one room.
you can talk in circles all day but reality to you is different from anyone else. you can point to facts but facts are constantly changing. science contradicts itself and is then left to general opinion. that opinion may change with the addition of new facts.

All you're discussing here is attributes of individuals. Two individuals with a different set of attributes does not justify different realities. It simply justifies different individuals.

We're simply using the term "reality" differently. To you, reality is whatever is perceived. To me, reality is whatever exists, regardless of perception.

farfromglorified wrote:

... Regardless, at that point we arguably re-enter the idea of belief driving reality as opposed to the other way around. And that likely sets up a contradiction wherein we say that reality gives rise to belief and belief gives rise to reality at the same time. Logically, it becomes very troubling.

Do you know that reality does not spring from consciousness? If so, how?

Isn't it possible that like numerous wise seers through the ages have stated, that everything springs from consciousness? --everything we can conceive of? Isn't it possible that we exist within our individual perspective within this consciousness? Isn't it possible that we create our reality in each moment in each day, by our thoughts? And that most of us live pretty mainstream similar lives due to that we continue to think the same 1000s of thoughts day in and out?

Within this mindset, it makes sense that some people believe and live out that they are victims of the environment, their history and those around them, whereas others believe they can rise above all the circumstances in their lives and therefore do so.

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Individual light photons can physically exist in two separate places at the same time. This has been proven.

This is accepted quantum theory, yes. There are, however, many physicists who believe this is an impossibility. There are unsolved contradictions between quantum and relative physics that, if true, would invalidate what I say. That said, a whole host of physical problems emerge from those contradictions that lead many physicists such as string theorists, to seek unified theories.

In other words, I would counter this simply by saying it's likely we have an incomplete understanding of physics. I expect that to bear out in time. However, it may not happen.

angelica wrote:

Do you know that reality does not spring from consciousness? If so, how?

Because I cannot shape reality from consciousness. I cannot think food into existence. I cannot think myself immortal. I cannot think God into being. I cannot think my mind into being both a mind and not a mind at the same time. I must think of these things and then act in order to make them real, even then often failing to achieve my desires.

However, we can remove volition and reason from consciousness and we could simply say that perception is a "joke" and we would be philosophically consistent. Yet such a contention would be completely unproveable since it would require perception to prove. It woud be nothing more than a philosophical statement of plausibility. The words true, false, right, and wrong would could no longer apply in any meaningful way.

Isn't it possible that like numerous wise seers through the ages have stated, that everything springs from consciousness? --everything we can conceive of? Isn't it possible that we exist within our individual perspective within this consciousness? Isn't it possible that we create our reality in each moment in each day, by our thoughts? And that most of us live pretty mainstream similar lives due to that we continue to think the same 1000s of thoughts day in and out?

It's entirely possible. Look, we can go back to the solipsism and say that I am the only one who exists and everyone and everything else is simply a manifestation of my consciousness. If approached correctly, it's a perfectly logical concept. Yet I doubt we'll find a solipsist who, when discovering a car driving the wrong way in his or her lane on the highway, would simply scream at the other driver "you don't exist".

Within this mindset, it makes sense that some people believe and live out that they are victims of the environment, their history and those around them, whereas others believe they can rise above all the circumstances in their lives and therefore do so.

Of course! Completely agree here. The judgements a person makes about the world will ultimately determine their behavior within it. That's the purpose of the mind in the first place.