© Roger M Tagg 2009 revised 2010
Welcome to FROLIO a new attempt to merge philosophy and the "semantic web" . This website is under continuing development.
Philosophy and casual conversation sometimes involves asking and trying to answer the question does XXXX exist? and I dont mean beer from Brisbane.
For a question like this to be meaningful, we need to agree which sense of the word "exists" we are using. What are the rules for deciding whether XXXX exists or not?
I suggest that "existence" is not absolute, but can be measured on a scale. The first table shows a scale that I use.
| Level | What it means | Options | Level of consensus needed | Time factor |
| 1. | We can physically sense it |
- we can touch it - we can feel it (physically) - we can see it - we can hear it - we can smell it - we can taste it |
- there is general consensus - most people can sense it - members of certain groups can sense it - just one person claims to have sensed it |
- we can always sense it - some people have sensed it in the past |
| 2. | We can rationally deduce it |
- by scientific experiment or investigation - by statistically summarizing observations - by logical or mathematical deduction |
- experiments are accepted as reliable, repeatable - some people incline to a theory - one person has proposed a theory |
- it follows on current theories - it followed on the theories current at some time past |
| 3. | We can emotionally feel it |
- it affects our body, e.g. nerves - it affects our psyche |
- it's a widely experienced feeling, e.g. mass hysteria - it's particular to some groups - it's purely an individual thing |
- it's persistent - it's transient, it comes and goes |
| 4. | We can read, talk or write about it |
- published material - private communication |
- it's written in generally available media - it's limited to specialist groups - it's discussed in idle chatter |
- the records are still available - manuscripts and records are lost, so there's just folk memory |
| 5. | We can think about it |
- just an idea in the mind, possibly discussed between people |
- it's probably limited to one person or a small group |
- we remembered it - it went out of our mind |
| God | Satan | Evil | Hate | Altruism | Beauty |
| Sympathy | Society | Culture | Mass hysteria | Pain | Heartache |
| Electrons | ΅-mesons | Photons | Waves | A rainbow | A mirage |
| Dinosaurs | Black holes | The Black Death | HIV AIDS | Viruses | ESP (thought transference) |
| Mickey Mouse | Robin Hood | James Bond | Daleks | Martians | Lewis Carroll |
| The Loch Ness Monster | The Adelaide Rams | Terrorism | Iraq's WMDs | The Yeti | Miracles |
| Fundamentalism | Post-modernism | Nirvana | Reincarnation | Transubstantiation | Predestination |
| Plate tectonics | Black Holes | Global warming | 11-year sunspot cycle | The Shoufeng fault | Trickle-down economics |
| Classes | Facts | 100% accurate predictions | The square root of -1 | A long-dead person | A fish that has been eaten |
The blue group are intended as concepts, things we can talk and think about, and give examples of, but not sense directly with our physical senses.
The brown group are things that have been named to describe observations - either direct or through special equipment or deductive processes.
The pink group are imaginary things - products of our imagination, although doubtless there are some "daleks" in a BBC museum somewhere.
The yellow group are all theories - some may be truer than others. I'm not very hot on Taiwanese geology, but apparently there is disagreement on whether such a fault actually exists.
The green group are a mixed bag - on the left are purely informational things, on the right are things that once lived but don't exist now.
We can discuss many of these individually - I don't propose to do so on this page, but I plan to offer some thoughts on another page some time.
My own view is that we can look on "existence" as a relationship, one I would call "can be distinguished from". The FROLIO "A" role is whatever we are discussing as to whether it exists or not. The "B" role is the background, opposite, or pattern against which we can detect this thing XXXX; maybe in some cases all three.
Classes are pretty fundamental in any philosophy, but my view is that they are just one formal model of the "patterns" that we can observe and maybe agree on. It may be that some philosophies are "too formal" and lead to paradoxes such as Russell's paradox.
"Does XXXX exist?" seems to beg too many supplementary questions.
"Do you (we, people in general) believe in XXXX?" might make more sense. However even this leaves two things unstated:
For example, if we're asked if we believe in God, whose package is implied? Some particular sect of Christianity or Islam? What about Buddhism or Hinduism? What about some abstract concept? What can the God do? Can he/she/it answer individual human or mass prayers? I always remember my school chaplain who prayed "O Lord, if it be thy will, may the first fifteen (that's Rugby Union) win on Tuesday".
I think we need to be still more specific. Here are some other related questions.
| Basic question | Interpretation | Example of where the answer is "no" |
| Is it real? | Is it something we can sense, or read or talk about? | The Loch Ness Monster |
| Is it alive/active now? | Alchemy, the Caloric Theory, Alexander the Great | |
| Has it ever been alive/active? | Are there reliable historical documents, or other evidence, keeping the memory of it? | Piltdown Man, Apollo, the Yeti |
| Is it true? | Is it generally accepted and supported by unbiased corroboration? | The earth is stationary with respect to the rest of the universe; The claim that there was no Holocaust |
| Can it be proved? | Can we provide evidence that can stand up to questioning, does it follow logically? | The Big Bang, String Theory, a prosecution with insufficient evidence |
| Is it credible? | Does it fit well enough with peoples' current traditions of interpretation? | Copernicus' system (the planets revolve around the sun) was not credible to mediaeval Catholic officials |
| Is it effective? | Does it actually do the job which is claimed for it? | Lymeswold (an English blue soft cheese) was said to cure Herpes (jokingly) |
| Is it what we want to hear? | Does it fit with the ideas for the future that we have committed to? | Governments by political parties supported by industrial interests don't want to hear about global warming |
It is interesting to apply these questions to some difficult concepts, ideas or scenarios, e.g. 6-day Creation of the universe (or any "sacred book" literalism), the Enlightenment, Free Market theories, Marxism etc.
All this only covers the present and the past. The future - and predictions about it - are another matter.
Index to more of these diatribes
Some of these links may be under construction or re-construction.
This version updated on 25th May 2010
If you have constructive suggestions or comments, please contact the author rogertag@tpg.com.au .