aaron is saying they have electrical measurements. Which is true, they do exist in that sense but the actual idea behind it does not exist. I am not sure how to put this in better words if he doesn't understand.

Right... By challenging your naive thinking with questions, I'm *clearly* looking to avoid making statements that I've made many times, such as the fact that I'm a mathematical Platonist. It has nothing to do with the fact that I'm trying to get you to think more deeply about your philosophical views at all.

Wrong starting point.

Is that the true Scotsman of existence statements? What is the difference between "exist" and "really exist"?

Suppose that the universe is finite and only contains a finite number of particles*. Now add one. Can you do it?

* There are an estimated 10^82 hydrogen atoms in the universe (http://www.universetoday.com/36302/a...-the-universe/)

I'm saying that even physicalists admit the existence of ideas. You're heading down a path that you're not going to like.

Do ideas have influence in the universe? That is, if I decide to kick the dog and then I kick the dog, did the idea to kick the dog have an influence on my kicking the dog?

Ideas and mathematics are not objects since all objects have non-structural properties, but ideas and mathematics do not.

There is nothing more to being the number 3 than having certain intrastructurally defined relational properties, such as succeeding 2, being half of 6, and being prime. No matter how hard we study arithmetic and set theory, we will never know whether 3 is identical with the fourth von Neumann ordinal, or with the corresponding Zermelo ordinal, or perhaps, as Frege suggested, with the class of all three-membered classes (in some system that allows such classes to exist).

Therefore, numbers are not objects at all, because in giving the properties …of numbers you merely characterize an abstract structure—and the distinction lies in the fact that the “elements” of the structure have no properties other than those relating them to other “elements” of the same structure.

In other words, there can be no objects which have nothing but structural properties. All objects must have some non-structural properties as well. (See Benacerraf 1996 for some later reflections on this argument.)

Is there a statement here about existence? Something exists if and only if it's an object?

Something exists independently to subjective experience if it is an object. Ideas and mathematics do not since they're not objects.

Consider our bodies as objects for example.

We would say that within our bodies we experience ideas and mathematics, but this inner-monologue or narrative may be illusory, just as people's feelings of control - over decisions (free-will).

Thanks for clarifying the definition that you're using. However, I'm not entirely sure that this is the usage of the term in the Benacerraf article.

The non-definitiveness of this statement is interesting relative to your declarative above.

Well I don't personally have a stance on the issue. Nor do I have a stance on the issue of solipsism or methodological reductionism, amongst many other large philosophical and scientific issues.

I like to get to know them all, and their assumptions and limitations. What I don't like doing is hastily choosing a side, because choosing a side on such significant issues will always mean choosing to adopt one set of assumptions over another set of assumptions.

Instead, I'd rather only choose to adopt the assumptions that are required for me to get on with my day-to-day functioning and empower me to become progressively happier or attain more power. I believe some would refer to this as pragmatism.

"Pragmatism rejects the idea that the function of thought is to describe, represent, or mirror reality. Instead, pragmatists consider thought an instrument or tool for prediction, problem solving and action."

[QUOTE Im not sure what my point is, but God only exists if you think it does.[/QUOTE]

The problem with this point is the earth and humanity. Where did it/we come from?

Created by God, i think. That is what i believe. Of course, i have no proof, but i have never asked for "a sign" , maybe i felt like i didnt need one.

Why would you not need a sign to suggest that something that goes against all our scientific discoveries to date, is the right explanation?

Just to be clear, it does not go against them. It extends the postulates into a space that is untestable, at least at this time.

Could you please elaborate on your particular beliefs?

The religions I have a little knowledge of go against a lot of basic scientific laws

Hi, which discoveries ? do you mean ideas and observations ?

It would be easier to start with the beliefs and take it from there..

Are you asking me to elaborate on my particular beliefs, like you are asking RLK to ? More specifically, my beliefs on how the universe/planet earth/ human race was created ?

This was the exchange that prompted my comment:

AA - The problem with this point is the earth and humanity. Where did it/we come from?

JH - Created by God, i think. That is what i believe. Of course, i have no proof, but i have never asked for "a sign" , maybe i felt like i didnt need one.

You - Why would you not need a sign to suggest that something that goes against all our scientific discoveries to date, is the right explanation?

Me - Just to be clear, it does not go against them. It extends the postulates into a space that is untestable, at least at this time.

It seems clear that my comment was that the concept that the first cause of the universe, and by extension the earth and humanity, is God is not in conflict with scientific discoveries to date.

Given that, I am not sure I understand the point of your question.

I guess if your point is as loose as 'God is the trigger that created the universe' then yes, you're right.. Even if that 'God' is a fluctuation in energy density or something.

I suppose contradicting science comes in to play when you start talking about the more traditional ideas of a god.

In general the term God in some sense refers to a creator with a consciousness. Extending the term to inanimate physical causes is inconsistent imo because it wraps the term into atheistic views of the origin of the universe which removes any consistency from the discussion.

The god with a conciousness is the god which scientific observations and understanding go against

What scientific observation rules out the existence of a conscious creator?

Why could we not of created ourselves?

If not we, our energy.

If not 'our' energy, Energy.

Just needs one spark of consciousness to decide well alright. This is the situation, do I infinitely regress, or infinitely progress.
Can not imagine the paradox being infinite, at least not the first time. Even worse case, infinite regression through infinitely repeating the same mistake of deciding in the first place is an evolution of the initial infinite regression. Owing to additional complexity to solve the equation.
As it is, boosters to max, got some love to share.