"What is your dangerous idea?"

[Vesko]

The 2006 "Edge Annual Question", current answers on "What is your dangerous idea?", http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_print.html.

[InfoSource]

Thanks for the link Vesko, lots of radical ideas discussed there, some of them not exactly comforting ideas, but interesting nonetheless

[Alisima]

I have a riddle, it is based upon 2 dangerous idea's. I don't have a good solution for it other than the one I will give at the bottom of my post, but think for yourself first.

Imagine you want to prove the nonexistence of an object. It can be God, it can be a soul or even the aether, it doesn't matter. An non-existing object however, doesn't have evidence of it's nonexistence, since, if it had, it would exist. Just like knocking on someone's door and getting a response 'I am not home' is impossible if the person in the house truly isn't there, same is with a non-existing object having evidence of it own nonexistence. So, realising that you cannot find evidence of a non-existing object, you say to yourself that every object which cannot be proven real is a non-existing object. And since you haven't found your non-existing object, because, according to yourself, there isn't one and so you will never find it, you finally find a rest after such an arduous search.

But then doubt sets in, what if the object, the one you claimed to be non-existing, does in fact exist and, since you have prematurely stopped your search, you simply haven't found it?? In other words, it could be right around the corner waiting to be discovered. Upon having such upsetting thoughs, you quickly start your search again. But not after many steps you realise that such a search will be futile, and not to mention endless, if the object in fact doesn't exist. However, you continue your search simply because you have no prove of it's nonexistence and because of the possibility of it being just around the corner.

What is the flaw in this kind of logic?? The only positive outcome, one where all doubt is gone, is the finding of the object of which you originally tried to prove it's nonexistence. But when the object in fact doesn't exist you will never know for sure. And you either search endlessly, be in doubt endlessly, or both.

You could imagine the flaw being in the assumption that a 'non-existing object doesn't have evidence of it's own nonexistence' and thus you can never prove it's nonexistence. But now imagine a society living without this idea. When such a society stubles upon the idea of objects which don't exist, they will want proof for that and thus start a endless search. Eventually it can be the demise of such a society, since it spends most of it's time proving that some objects don't exist.

However, saying that the assumption that 'it could be right around the corner waiting to be discovered' is flawed just because in the case of a non-existing object you would search endlessly is just as stupid. What if the non-existing object did exist?? You would prematurely end you search and not find the 'holy-grail'.

So, what is the flaw in this kind of logic??



My guess is the assumption that there is a difference between existing and non-existing objects. In other words, either all objects exist or none at all.

[Robanan]

So, what is the flaw in this kind of logic??

It ignores the fact that the idea of an object is existent always even if the object itself is nonexistent and does not exist

[Alisima]

So, what is the flaw in this kind of logic??

It ignores the fact that the idea of an object is existent always even if the object itself is nonexistent and does not exist

Yes, ok. And when you try to prove it's nonexistence you will have trouble since it doesn't exist in the outside world yet it does exist in the inside world, in your mind.

But how then does one determine which objects are merely idea's in your mind and thus simply don't exist?? Or do you mean that the apparently non-existing object you search for exists as long as you search, at least enough to keep you searching, and stops existing all together when you abandon searching?? Well, that maybe true, but what if the apparently non-existing object actually did exist, but simply there where you haven't sought?? Knowing this, would you stop searching??

I think I would search, I would search down the whole earth. But, to increase my chances, I would search for 10 different object simultaneously. Perhapse 5 of them I will never find, since they don't exist, but I won't abandon the search itself since there is a huge chance some of them do in fact exist. Ofcourse then the hypothetical question becomes: what if after having searched 70% of the earth (let's assume they are physical objects) and having found 9 out of the 10 objects, would I still search the remaining 30% of the earth, knowing that perhapse it might not even exist?? Ofcourse, searching 30% for 1 object is clearly smaller than 100% for 1 object, and, knowing this, I would probably do it.

[Robanan]

Yes, ok. And when you try to prove it's nonexistence you will have trouble since it doesn't exist in the outside world yet it does exist in the inside world, in your mind.

Why should I try to prove the nonexistence of the contents of my mind? Judge by the results, you got to a self contradicting paradox.

I can't understand how Vesko's post under this topic could have triggered such a dilemma in your mind.

[Alisima]

Why should I try to prove the nonexistence of the contents of my mind? Judge by the results, you got to a self contradicting paradox.

I wasn't talking about the nonexistence of the contents of your mind, nor anybodies mind for that matter. I simply agreed with what you said.

I can't understand how Vesko's post under this topic could have triggered such a dilemma in your mind.

I don't know, I just thought it was fun. Does everything needs to have a clear cause??

[Robanan]

I don't know, I just thought it was fun. Does everything needs to have a clear cause??

Within the context of this forum, Yes! Posts without any clear cause are called flood.

[survivor]

#Note to higher self..DELETE everything I just read in this thread.



P.S The thread was a good idea at the time.