Ontology Quiz

[Rade]

Lets have some fun. OK class, get out your bluebooks, time for a quiz. I put before you on top of my desk a chair. Using the fewest number of words logically possible for each possibility, convince me that: (1) the chair exists, (2) the chair does not exist (hint: repeating the questions as an answer a no, no).

[jedaisoul]

Lets have some fun. OK class, get out your bluebooks, time for a quiz. I put before you on top of my desk a chair. Using the fewest number of words logically possible for each possibility, convince me that: (1) the chair exists, (2) the chair does not exist (hint: repeating the questions as an answer a no, no).

(1) In as much as anything other than myself exists, the chair exists, because I perceive it.

 

(2) No reply.

 

Note: It is not possible to demonstrate that the chair does not exist, therefore I will not try.

[pamela]

Lets have some fun. OK class, get out your bluebooks, time for a quiz. I put before you on top of my desk a chair. Using the fewest number of words logically possible for each possibility, convince me that: (1) the chair exists, (2) the chair does not exist (hint: repeating the questions as an answer a no, no).

 

you have merely stated that a chair is on your desk.I cannot see the chair, i can only imagine the chair, therefore the chair does not exist

[Rade]

I think the two answers below answer the OP quiz very well. The short versions that I had in mind were: (1) existence exists and (2) what chair ?

 

Jedaisol:

(1) In as much as anything other than myself exists, the chair exists, because I perceive it.

 

Pamela:

(2) You have merely stated that a chair is on your desk. I cannot see the chair, I can only imagine the chair, therefore the chair does not exist.

[freeztar]

An equally valid question might be: How do I know that Rade exists? :)

[lemit]

Lets have some fun. OK class, get out your bluebooks, time for a quiz. I put before you on top of my desk a chair. Using the fewest number of words logically possible for each possibility, convince me that: (1) the chair exists, (2) the chair does not exist (hint: repeating the questions as an answer a no, no).

 

(1) You already know that's a chair.

 

(2) That isn't a table.

 

--lemit

[watcher]

or all go to you up there, grab the chair and smash it to your head.

figuratively speaking of course. LOL

[Doctordick]

I do read these posts quite regularly and am sometimes moved to post. Most of the time I find the threads so dominated by total lack of thought that posting to the thread seems to be an absolutely worthless effort (as perhaps this post is but I will, none the less, persist).

I put before you on top of my desk a chair. Using the fewest number of words logically possible for each possibility, convince me that: (1) the chair exists, (2) the chair does not exist (hint: repeating the questions as an answer a no, no).

Clearly (1) the chair does not exist.

 

No one here has taken into account the “fact” (and it is a fact) that the concept “chair” is an idea commonly used in the English language to represent a very specific circumstance. There are two important consequences of this “fact”: first, it presumes the world view in which the concept “chair” exists is the only valid world view (a definite unprovable presumption) and second, it presumes that the world views of the people using the term “chair” have exactly the same concept in their heads (a second unprovable presumption). The third possibility (that you have lied) actually has little bearing on the question as it is already questionable by common logic even if you think you are telling the truth. :)

 

Existence requires more than just one's opinion. Existence implies that each and every explanation of reality consistent with what is “known” (no matter what is "known" might be) requires the concept. That is a very difficult constraint to prove. The only concept I have been able to “prove” to be absolutely necessary is the concept “time” (my definition of time, not the common, "time is what clocks measure" definition). That proof follows directly from the fact that we are not “all knowing” which, I think, is some what universally accepted. :eek2:

 

I really wish you people would put, perhaps, a little bit of thought into your responses. :hihi:

 

Have fun -- Dick

[pamela]

I do read these posts quite regularly and am sometimes moved to post. Most of the time I find the threads so dominated by total lack of thought that posting to the thread seems to be an absolutely worthless effort (as perhaps this post is but I will, none the less, persist).

how thoughtful of you to join in

Clearly (1) the chair does not exist.

yes, someone else stated that earlier in the thread

No one here has taken into account the “fact” (and it is a fact) that the concept “chair” is an idea commonly used in the English language to represent a very specific circumstance. There are two important consequences of this “fact”: first, it presumes the world view in which the concept “chair” exists is the only valid world view (a definite unprovable presumption) and second, it presumes that the world views of the people using the term “chair” have exactly the same concept in their heads (a second unprovable presumption). The third possibility (that you have lied) actually has little bearing on the question as it is already questionable by common logic even if you think you are telling the truth. :)

well dick, you merely presume this, or is it possible that you have managed to add mind reading to your list of accomplishments

Existence requires more than just one's opinion. Existence implies that each and every explanation of reality consistent with what is “known” (no matter what is "known" might be) requires the concept. That is a very difficult constraint to prove. The only concept I have been able to “prove” to be absolutely necessary is the concept “time” (my definition of time, not the common, "time is what clocks measure" definition). That proof follows directly from the fact that we are not “all knowing” which, I think, is some what universally accepted. :eek2:

 

I really wish you people would put, perhaps, a little bit of thought into your responses. :hihi:

 

Have fun -- Dick

the question asks for as few words as possible not for as few thoughts.How can you possibly know and or prove what process took place in each members mind and the amount of time to process their answers before posting.would i possibly think the same of you had you limited your lengthy post to just

Clearly (1) the chair does not exist. :eek: ?