Do objects exist

[lemmingllama]

This ones a bit of a tough one, so think before you answer.

Is there an object which has a certain intrinsic nature, and continues to exist when I am not

looking, or is the object merely a product of my imagination, a dream-object in a very prolonged

dream?

Also, by percieving that object with our senses, do we actually know if it exists since we are only recieving data from our senses?

[Katongo]

We can not proof that we exist has human beings and objects are no exception, if we perceive something we just accept that, this does not prove that anything else exists physically. We know that when we think we perceive a version of reality(objects) but have to accept that this perceived reality(objects) may be an illusion. We know that perceived reality(objects) is consistent if one person can see it so can another and we also know that universal law is predictable. When I see an object that looks like a reality, responds like a reality and behaves like a reality, I call that object a reality. But Of course, the above is not an absolute proof, that’s true it is an object.

But then again it can be argued either way

We can accept that our senses can get things wrong time to time, we can perceive things that are not really there, this is when we have to recognize that perception and reality are different things. I know am experiencing reality right now because i am a sum of experience, intellect, emotions, a physical body and the space on earth that it occupies. Do objects exist yes i know this because am experiencing it.

[failedhornet]

For real intents and purposes, an unperceived object doesn't exist. Reality should be exactly what it's perceived to be. We can imagine or even know for certain what could or does exist beyond our ability to interact or detect such things, but in terms of science and tangible physical reality it would be unrealistic to say that unmeasurable or undetectable things physically exist.

[Yuno Gasai]

Existence is ultimately only measured by our senses

[The Welsh Paddy]

I swear some people watch too much of The Matrix.

Also, by percieving that object with our senses, do we actually know if it exists since we are only recieving data from our senses?

If billions of other people can see it, feel it, smell it, hear it, then I would firmly believe it exists. I mean, if it didn't, then billions of people would have had to imagine the exact same thing, right down to the smallest detail. That's just not possible.

[kaoru]

Hehe this reminds me of a philosophy class I had in high-school; the teacher put a chair on top of a table and the essay was to write anything freely about its existence. I don't remember what I wrote or what grade I had, but the answer that got top score was only a one liner (some people went on and on about it): "What chair?"

I guess the answer was the object's don't need us, but I don't know.. the objects do exist when they are not being used or seen, or even thought of; we just add meaning, in the sense that, that chair in the exam was useless because it was on top of a table rather than under it, but it still exists, and you can still sit on it, just doesn't make much sense. come to think of it i probably wrote something around this, i was a very pragmatic bitchy teen

[Dae314]

I honestly think a more interesting questions is the existence of virtual objects, but I'll stay on topic. Part of your question is whether we're just imagining all the things around us. Lets think about that for a second. Where does most of the stuff we imagine come from? I'm going to say that most of the time it's an extrapolation (albeit sometimes a very far extrapolation) of our experiences in what we've sensed. If this holds true for all imagination (that is, all things imagined must have some at least weak basis on sensory experience or logic based on sensory experience), then it becomes a little weird to argue that our sensory experiences are imaginary. If they are in fact imaginary, then what are they based on? What original sensory experience could possibly lead to the current reality which is itself a sensory experience which could potentially spawn more imaginary sensory experiences in a never ending recursive cycle?

In order to use this as an argument, it must first be proved that all things imaginary are based on some sensory experience no matter how vaguely connected. That is hard to argue. Is it possible to imagine something which is completely and totally unrelated to ANY sensory experience? In the simple case, can you imagine some smell that is not a smell you have ever smelled before, and has no connections to any smell that you have smelled before? In a complex case, do you think that you can some how imagine the entire natural universe perfectly with all its complex laws of interaction (physics) both known and unknown with no basis? I have no proof for that something like what I explained is impossible.

If we assume that all imaginary things are based on sensory experience though, then trying to find reality becomes impossible. Therefore, in order to logically examine reality, one must assume that the current sensory experience is in fact reality. If an arbitrary start point is named, all sensory experiences following from it may be deemed imaginary, but that point of reality is where things can be examined. If we assume that a certain instant is the source of reality, then all "things" in that instant are in fact real.

The next question would be whether our sensory experience with those things is authentic. I'm about to be super general about the senses. Sight detects light, which is photons traveling at the speed of light rebounding or being emitted by an object. Touch uses electrical impulses within the body to detect impact or interaction with structures of molecules of a certain size or greater. Taste and smell associates certain sensations with specific molecules. Hearing measures the frequency of vibration of molecules and translates that to sensation. Using these 5 senses, we can define objects in that instant of reality which was arbitrarily chosen. However, is that enough to constitute a complete picture of an object in reality? What about devices which measure values outside of the human sensory range? All "sense" boils down to this for me: the measurement of the concentration, structure, or energy of a collection of atoms. If the definition that all things are made of tiny structures called atoms can be held true, then it will follow that if an atom is real all things made of atoms will also be real. Then, if we can "sense" atoms in these 5 ways, is that enough? I think that all technology we make which extends human sensory perception does is make it possible to sense smaller concentrations/structures/energies of atoms at distances which are either much larger or much smaller than human perception is able to sense. Therefore, devices can be ruled out as simply extending what can already be perceived but does not really add to the definition of what is real by human sensory perception. I don't have an answer to if human sensory perception is enough to constitute a complete picture of reality.

For those who do not know, it has been shown that light behaves differently when it is observed. The experiment is called the double slit experiment, and you can google it if you don't know what I'm talking about. The double slit experiment shows that it's possible for light at least to behave differently depending on whether it's being observed or not observed (even with a camera). I don't actually have a complete understanding of the full experimental procedure of the double slit experiment so if someone knows more about it feel free to correct me. While that is interesting, it does not show that atoms (I will talk about atoms because if it can be proved that atoms do not exist, it follows that objects which are made of atoms do not exist) cease to exist when not being observed. It shows that different behavior is possible when observation is left out though. Could that behavior some how extend to ceasing to exist? The thought experiment commonly known as Schrodinger's cat is again similar, but not exactly what we're discussing. Schrodinger's cat poses the question of whether the system (the cat) is alive or dead, and when does it become that way in a closed, unobserved environment. However, that question might be answerable if it can be proven that matter ceases to exist when it is not observed (the answer would be that the cat stops existing and comes back dead/alive when the box is opened and observation resumes). By definition though, this is impossible to prove directly. It cannot be proven that matter which is not being observed is not existing because matter which is not being observed cannot be evaluated. However, if matter does cease to exist when it is not observed, then matter has a queer way of popping back into existence whenever observation resumes. Often, if the matter in question is undergoing motion, the matter will pop back into existence in the exact position it should've been in given that it did continue to exist (think of a ball thrown through a short tunnel where it cannot be observed).

So this post has gotten to be so extremely long that I've lost the point that I was trying to get to somewhere in the middle. I think I basically ended up with the conclusion that this question can be neither proven false, nor true, and thus is completely open to consideration. Forgive me for rambling, but it's pretty late and I'm tired and trying to think like a philosophy major when I'm a computer science major .

Have fun questioning the meaning of existence everyone .

[DrumRoll]

who cares?

[Monad-Gnostis]

To be honest, I believe that all objects exist at the same time because if it were like that then it would be a strain for that object to keep reappearing and making our senses feel, smell, taste, see, and hear. dont you think it would be hard for a object to do such a thing? but also know this the very fact that you come up with this idea means that their just may very well be more senses. Just now you beamed an Idea or image into my mind and got me thinking about the subject, the very fact that we live so far away from each and this happens must mean something, right?

I dunno what the hell I just said... ??? nahh!

[lemmingllama]

who cares?

You are why philosophers commit suicide... Just so you know. Though I do kinda agree...

[DrumRoll]

philosophers commit suicide because their heads are so far up their own arses they suffocate.

[kaoru]

philosophers commit suicide because their heads are so far up their own arses they suffocate.

Lol that might be half true; some people go so far into the study of the psyche and the human mind that end up losing theirs in the process; the brain is a terrible thing to taste.

[TheLostFool]

Cogito ergo sum. (I think, therefore I am)

That is the conclusion that Rene Descartes came to when contemplating existence and what actually exists.

But as to the physical and tangible speaking philosophically one can't say they exist or not. Merely that "I think, therefore I am" that my mind exists and I exist, me being my mind, my consciousness. But other than that one can't definitive determine what does and does not exist in the physical world. Or if it's even as we perceive it. I would go into this further but I can't be bothered lol.