IndivisiblePrinciple wrote:
I do agree with the proposed principle that "that which exist has effect", but regarding the four reasons given to accept this definition, I think the first two are counter productive.

As far as "rational relevance" goes, on the basis of what I said earlier, I think we put are self at a disadvantage by saying: "If something has truly no effect on anything whatsoever, we really don't care if it exists anyway." The reason being that the very scope of our ability to tentatively asses whether "something truly has no effect on anything whatsoever" is so limited, vulnerable, and volatile that it basically disqualifies us from ever being able to authentically arrive at this "conclusion" or make this assertion. Of course through methods of reasoning we may to able to tenably eliminate certain notions, concepts, or hypothesis on the basis of accepted or verified truths, but even this may be fallible.

And regarding your second reason to accept this definition, in your previous response to me you said, "the definition is about existence, not your ability to know of it", but while advocating it with the notion of "detectable empiricism" you said, "we decide that something exists only when we detect that something is having effect. All of our senses function based on the effect that something else has upon them". So in actuality, it seems to me that you stance on defining "existence" is largely connected, and thus compromised, by the criteria of our ability know of it.

I believe that the ontological validity of your essential point i.e that that which exists has effect, should be accepted. But that we should be candid and careful in our estimation of what we can actually conclude or disprove on its basis.

IndivisiblePrinciple wrote:
Alright, fair enough ( I guess ). But I still say that statements like these: "if we are aware that something has NO effect, then we do NOT care to accept that it exists." reflect a certain degree of ignorance or denial concerning our real epistemic position.

How exactly are we "aware" that something has no effect? And I don't mean something like "how can we be aware of something which has no effect?". I mean specifically, how can we be aware (or sure) THAT something has no effect? What facilities do we have that determine this with any degree of certainty or dependability? I mean really.

The empiric platform, or the 'empiric-cum-reasoning based on empiric data' platform has its practical utility. There is no doubt or argument about that. Yet it serves as a terrible platform from which to try to address or confront the whole entire scope of knowledge and understanding. Even if we say there is no such thing as "Deities" and a metaphysical wonderland, etc,etc, still our capacity, even in regards to collecting and assimilating the empiric data well within the scope of gross tangible experience should leave us with more questions than answers.

And btw, I know you keep affirming that you are not making statements espousing the notion of a things non-existence based on lack of empiric data/verification, but then it seems to me like this idea still underlies many notions you put forward, so I am responding accordingly. If this is not the case then so be it. Everything is well and good.

IndivisiblePrinciple wrote:
At any rate, my essential point to you remains is that such assumptions as, "one of the reasons we know that we really don't have a fourth spacial dimension is that such a dimension would cause an enormous and undeniable effect, that we can easily discern isn't there." are very fallible. Considering its track record, using the human scope of empiric abilities as a reference to propose absolute determinations about reality (such as the non-existence of an object or dimension because of its presumed lack of effect, or lack of perceived effect on some humans observation) is a bit too reckless to fall in the category of philosophy or science. It seems more like self-confirmed presumptuousness.

duszek wrote:
So if I think of something strange, a horse with seven legs, this something exists because if has effect ?
In this case an effect on my mind, and on the mind of some other people whom I tell about it.

I am only trying to apply the criterium put forward in the opening post.