Last night while I was at work, it dawned on me about 2:45am that maybe you guys had watched The Matrix one too many times and you were waiting for me to take the blue pill. Either that or a wholesale rejection of existentialism in favor of an ontological approach.
In the first quoted line above, I would suggest that the universe is what it is (no Clintonian manipulation) regardless of what we are looking for. Finding what we're looking for may alter our perception of the universe, our construct, but does not alter the fundamental existence of the universe whatever it may be.
In line 2, I respond that our lack of understanding our own constructs is irrelevant to the issue of existence, which is independent of our constructs. We must exist before we think, before we create constructs.
Finally, Heisenberg's principle is simply a tool to understand a construct but to apply the tool, existence is a prerequisite. It presumes something exists (electrons, quarks, strings, et.al.) even if we can't predict it's exact location at an exact time. Existence is the reason for the construct.
Or I could put it this way: Without existence, constructs cannot exist. Without constructs, existence exists.
Stuffing trumps rice any day.
I know what you're saying...which is what you said before. My answer is the same, but I'll rephrase...
An identity (e.g. A=A or IS=IS) is not a fundamental truth. It is a self-defined proof. It is a mathematical/logical gadget that uses the definition of the object in the subject. To say "existence exists" is one such. It is not a shortcoming of language that makes this an identity. It is, as Robbie says, a "true statement". The example "Blue Is Blue" is what you would call a Universal Truth (UT from now on). But it is an identity. Even "Blue = EM^wavelength" is an identity. The example "Blue Is" could be considered a UT. But it's shortcoming is that "Blue" is a construct. By virtue of the physiology of our eyes, 'blue' looks different to each of us.
What is really at issue here is whether or not there is a reality beyond what we as constructors perceive. Would proof of that be considered a UT? The answer is yes, it would. Would a faith-based statement of that be considered a UT? No, it would not. (It would not be
universal.) "God exists" is a faith-based statement. Faith-based statements of UT exist...why? (Epiphany concerning my 'beliefs' should begin here.
) Is the
belief that there is an "out there" faith based? Yes it is.
This is all really an epistemological discussion of how we know what we know. Your friend Descartes spoke of primary and secondary properties of things that were intrinsic to them. Berkeley, OTOH, argued that such qualities exist only in the minds of the perceiver.
So now comes the final question that Robbie won't answer. I would like a statement of a UT that is not faith based, nor an identity. Any UT worth its salt will be provable.
(But...alas....it's a trap, and Robbie knows it. He's a smart cuss who stumbled only his toe into the trap and refuses to go further. LOL.)
True statement....we had rice. It was perfect for the chicken....or else!
Universal Truth ....(I'm feeling bold this morning, I'll give you one of mine.)
I do not understand the nature of the stuff, nor the relationships amongst this stuff that makes up the universe. QED. (See Robbie? That didn't hurt.
)
I still want to know who won the water tank rust wars.........
