Existence : A Chinese Perspective
jerry kraus
property of something?",
I suggested the possiblity that "existence", despite its important
mathematical implications, is, effectively, a concept with no specific
meaning. I've lately been exploring this notion in a debate on a
Chinese philosophy site, in Chinese, and I think some of the linguistic
and cultural aspects of the discussion there may actually have some
mathematical implications. See,
Bearing in mind the work of Hilbert, suggesting that self-consistency
is the basis of mathematical existence, and Godel's uncertainty
theorem, effectively undermining the concept of mathematical
consistency itself, a broad-based philosophical analysis may be of
interest.
In Chinese, the same two-characters are used for the english words
"presence" and "existence" (see the link above, for the chinese). In
western societies, these two concepts have different meanings.
Basically, when something exists, it is tied into a broader framwork of
reality. When something is present, we are aware of it, but it may or
may not be real.
I don't believe this concept of a "universal, objective reality" is
nearly as clear in Chinese culture as it is in the West. Neither is
the concept of existence. And, bear in mind, the scientific method, as
such, never really developed in China. Neither did modern mathematics.
Bear in mind, China is, traditionally, a fairly atheistic culture. In
particular, there is no traditional concept of a universal,
anthropomorphic deity, in Chinese culture. As a consequence, I
believe, there is much less of a sense of man as the "master of
nature". To what extent is this concept of man as "the master of
nature" necessary as an assumption for the pursuit of modern
mathematics and science?
In Genesis 1, God speaks, and his word becomes reality. In the Gospel
according to John, 1:1-14, the "word" is the beginning of all things,
and God is in the word. Then, the "word" is made flesh and blood, as a
man.
In the Chinese bible John, 1:1-14, "word" is translated as "way". This
is from the Daoist Chinese philosophy, the "way". "Words", as such, in
chinese, have no specific power, on their own. To what extent does the
Chinese perspective challenge western assumptions regarding reality,
science, and mathematics?
jerry kraus
property of something?",
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/browse_thread/thread/7c...
I suggested the possiblity that "existence", despite its important
mathematical implications, is, effectively, a concept with no specific
meaning. I've lately been exploring this notion in a debate on a
Chinese philosophy site, in Chinese, and I think some of the linguistic
and cultural aspects of the discussion there may actually have some
mathematical implications. See,
http://groups.google.com/group/cultstudy/browse_thread/thread/277c946...
Souvik
> mathematical implications, is, effectively, a concept with no specific
> meaning.
Existence clearly means something to the average Joe -- it means it
affects me. I can perceive it by some sense.
Electrons and other fundamental particles pop in and out of "existence"
from the vacuum and this has measurable and quantifiable effect on
persistent reality, ie our macroscopic measuring instruments. Existence
"happens" in the world of fundamental particles when E^2 ~ p^2 + m^2,
where E is the energy of the particle, p its momentum and m its mass.
The closer E^2 is to p^2+m^2, the more "existent", real, or persistent,
the particle and its effects is. The further, the more virtual and
unworldy.
What we mean by mathematical existence is a different beast altogether.
> When something is present, we are aware of it, but it may or
> may not be real.
How so?
> I don't believe this concept of a "universal, objective reality" is
> nearly as clear in Chinese culture as it is in the West. Neither is
> the concept of existence. And, bear in mind, the scientific method, as
> such, never really developed in China. Neither did modern mathematics.
How come they're so smart at it then? ;)
> In Genesis 1, God speaks, and his word becomes reality. In the Gospel
> according to John, 1:1-14, the "word" is the beginning of all things,
> and God is in the word. Then, the "word" is made flesh and blood, as a
> man.
>
> In the Chinese bible John, 1:1-14, "word" is translated as "way". This
> is from the Daoist Chinese philosophy, the "way".
Those bastards!
They found "the way" to sell Christianity to the Chinese!
> "Words", as such, in
> chinese, have no specific power, on their own. To what extent does the
> Chinese perspective challenge western assumptions regarding reality,
> science, and mathematics?
They don't. Just like the Old Testament, the Koran, Pink Floyd, or my
turkey for next week don't affect or challenge science or mathematics.
They are simply irrelevant.
-S
jerry kraus
quite inevitable and real limits to our ability to understand and
classify the real world? Indeed, doesn't it directly imply
considerable limits on the very concept of reality, very much along the
Chinese lines?
The Chinese aren't bad at science and mathematics. But they're still
not nearly as good as Europeans or Americans. China is still a very
poor country.
In my Chinese debate, one of my correspondents specifically
emphasized, in English and Chinese, that "control is an illusion". In
other words, so are much of science and mathematics. He may be wrong.
But the Chinese see western science largely as means of defending
against western military power, and very little else. They do not
admire it. They exploit it for very specific purposes.
Souvik
> What about Godel's undecidability theorem? Doesn't that directly imply
> quite inevitable and real limits to our ability to understand and
> classify the real world? Indeed, doesn't it directly imply
> considerable limits on the very concept of reality, very much along the
> Chinese lines?
I'm sorry, I don't see the connection. The theorem simply states that a
system of first order formal logic may not be complete and consistent
simultaneously.
Why would that limit our ability to understand and classify the real
world?
It does "limit" our capacity to understand *first order mathematical
systems* (insomuch as incompleteness or inconsistency is a property of
such systems), but why physical systems that are external to
mathematical reality?
> In my Chinese debate, one of my correspondents specifically
> emphasized, in English and Chinese, that "control is an illusion". In
> other words, so are much of science and mathematics. He may be wrong.
> But the Chinese see western science largely as means of defending
> against western military power, and very little else. They do not
> admire it. They exploit it for very specific purposes.
I wouldn't generalise based on the view of one Chinese person. I know
*lots* of Chinese physicists who really appreciate physics for the
window into nature's workings it provides.
Why do you call it "western" science? Is there any "eastern" science
that isn't mysticism, operates by the definition of the 'scientific
method' and actually works?
-S
Tonguessy
jerry kraus:
> What about Godel's undecidability theorem? Doesn't that directly imply
> quite inevitable and real limits to our ability to understand and
> classify the real world?
Would you mind to explain what "the real world" consists of? Is my
world real or not? How can i know it?
> But the Chinese see western science largely as means of defending
> against western military power, and very little else. They do not
> admire it. They exploit it for very specific purposes.
Do you mean that chines people work in chinese factory 11h a day, 7day
a week for pennies in order to exploit western science?
This reminds me of the guy who hit his balls with the sledgehammer in
order to play a nasty trick to his mother-in-law.
But, oh, although i've studied taoism for a long time i might have
missed most of it.
Tonguessy
ExtrêmeAchillès
jerry kraus a écrit :
a very interesting question. Thanks. Need reflexion before answering.
Is Existence a property of something ?
So nice question !
Georges Metanomski
--- ExtrêmeAchillès <alam...@free.fr> wrote:
=================================================
What's "something"?
What's "property"?
Georges
=================================================
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
ExtrêmeAchillès
words:
What's "something"?
What's "property"?
> What's "the relation between the concepts"?
something can be an objet or not. If something is an objet depend of
the reference system you use to prouve the existence of the objet
(stars already died but visibles in the night).
Something can also be not an objet same as when we say: something tell
to me... (intuition) Cann't be any prouves of this and this depend on
what you trust or not. (out of logic for aristote)
Existence depend of the referencial system you use but not only. same
for the stars in the night. If the star is died, i don't know what
happen beetwen the time i see the ligth and the real time on the place
of the star in the same moment. Also somtheng can exist without i know
it, and something can give the illusion existing and i don't know it
don't exist anymore.
For the suggestive sense of somthing in case of believe or not, this
out of the domain of logic.
Georges Metanomski a écrit :