Can something stop existing?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Logic and Philosophy of Math » Can something stop existing? » Can something stop existing?

Can something stop existing?

haxyo
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 2

Posted 04/07/08 - 04:02 PM: Subject: Can something stop existing?	#1
Take for example a sound wave. It reduces in energy and size as time passes. Since technically it would never reach zero as it always getting smaller, does that mean that the sound wave can never stop existing as its always reaching zero but never equal to zero. Now of course this is purely a mathematical approach, logically we would just round to zero and assume it ceased to exist. Let's hear other ideas on this.

jerrada
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 3

Posted 04/08/08 - 03:55 AM:	#2
There is no straight answer to your question... but there are many theories. Firstly, Mass cannot be created or destroyed, merely conserved. Now according to this rule the sound wave does not cease to exist, the energy given off still remains but is redistributed among other systems throughout the universe

rabeldin
Probabalistic Philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2003
Location: Puerto Rico
Total Topics: 30
Total Posts: 5415

Posted 04/10/08 - 03:19 AM:	#3
Doesn't this suggest that the use of the word "exist" in this context is problematic? This is really an example of the Sorites type of argument. How concentrated must the energy be to justify saying the sound wave exists? The sound wave is not a thing that can "exist" but a pattern that may (or may not) be found in the distribution of energy. When is a whisper so quiet that it becomes silence?
Leave no assumption unquestioned.

PhilipF
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 23, 2004
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 144

Posted 04/16/08 - 09:30 AM:	#4
I think this is a very good question. Some things seem to cease to exist because they become something else. A caterpiller doesn't really cease to exist when it becomes a butterfly, it has the same molecules they are just arranged differently and we give it a different name. An example like a sound wave is a bit dubious because currents of air ,and other vibrations would disrupt and eventually dissipate the orignal wave. I think a light beam is a more problematic example. Telescopes can now detect light which is half as old as the universe itself and more powerful instruments could push this even further back .So in theory a light beam could last as long as the age of the universe and never cease to exist. However is it the same wave? Until it is detected it is not really light in any particular place ( according to Feynman's 'sum of all paths' theory) and when it IS detected it ceases to be light. So you could say it has an origin and an end point but how could you prove it had a continuous existence in between?

quickly
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 29, 2007
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 126

Posted 04/17/08 - 10:35 PM:	#5
Shouldn't exist be differentiated between several constituents: (1) the existence of a thing as its "presencing," to consciousness; (2) the hypothetical objective existence of the cause of the event "present"; (3) the way in which the existence of the thing is outside of socio-historical situation but inside the hypothetical realm of a "pure consciousness" or ideal human? In the example of the sound wave, the "sound" aspect of the wave merely describes a conscious phenomena whereby a transfer of energy through a medium causes an organ to react, sending electrical currents through neuronal pathways and eventually (epiphenomenally) occuring as "sound" of the wave. So, in essence, the sound wave only exists insofar as something constructs the "sound" by being "heard." And in this sense, then, it ceases to exist when any occurant moment (presencing) ceases to produce the effect of sound. But in the second, you have to divorce the "sound" from the wave, positing the "sound wave" outside the domain of hearing. It becomes a wave. If no human existed to hear it, or no animal, it would still exist as a wave, capable of transmitting something resembling "information," but nevertheless being nothing more than a "wave," a transmission of energy. And of course, in the third, you're sterilized your working environment such that nothing resembling either (1) nor (2) would have applicability - you end up with the current notion. It only exists as sound insofar as it is sound; it only exists as a wave insofar as it exists; and insofar as it is a "sound wave" it is a dispersable, effacable, phenomena, which ceases to exist the minute it ceases to be "sound." If it disperses, dies out, loses force, how can it exist as sound or even the original wave? The sound wave is an event. Edited by quickly on 04/18/08 - 02:07 AM
"Monsters cannot be announced. One cannot say: 'here are our monsters', without immediately turning the monsters into pets." -Jacques Derrida

Baudin
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 18, 2008
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 42

Posted 04/18/08 - 12:47 AM:	#6
I find this very difficult to comprehend. Now I'm presuming that the example is correct and assuming that this wave can never reach zero but will get very close (excuse my terminology, but easier is usually.....well easier) then no. The wave will never cease to exist. It's as simple as that. You've stated the solution in the forming of your example. Now to get back to your question, can something stop existing? Quickly said a few interesting things. He split the problem of the "sound wave" into "sound" and "wave" and continued to challenge the theorem on the separate examples. Now if we take this up one step we can logically ask ourselves, can something cease to be what it was and change into something else? (with nothing being a "something else") Oi, how strange, something can only change when it's being observed by something else. "Something was A, and now it is B". Talking about change assumes a system of causal relations. So this question is effectively, "does causality exist? If so can there be a cause which effectually cancels something's existence?" And to that I can only say “I wish I knew what causality meant”
“What do I think of Western civilisation? I think it would be a very good idea.” --Mahatma Gandhi

quickly
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 29, 2007
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 126

Posted 04/18/08 - 11:23 AM:	#7
can something cease to be what it was and change into something else? (with nothing being a "something else") Oi, how strange, something can only change when it's being observed by something else. "Something was A, and now it is B". But that’s essentially the paradox, right? If we have two functions, f(x) and g(x), and [(lim x->0_+) f(x)] = y, where y is [(lim x-> 0_-) g(x)], then unless we redefine f(x) and g(x) as a composite function, e.g. h(x), then these disparate entities are connected only insofar as their limits (the point of causation) between them has a fundamentally similar variable (causality). But then again, is Ran: f(x) a composite of myriad points describable as functions? Of course; and to define f(x), or any entity which includes consciousness specifically within its constitution, as a composite entity, existing singularly as itself (the sound/wave), is to ignore the fact that you’re also constructing the sound/wave out of a flux, a becoming, (quasi-)transcendentally. But is the question really: “does causality exist?” It seems the question really is: “How does the mind constitute events which are perceived as having causal relationships; how does the mind describe continuity between events which it constructs from a fluid space; and finally how applicable are these events to the hypothetical existence of an objective reality?” Because if we wish to discuss the (non-)existence of a wave function, and its dispersal or causal efficacy, aren’t we really asking: “in what way do I conceive of reality such that it appears to be casually related; and how do I constitute events?” The question seems answerable without determining the objectivity of causality in its existence or being. What you’re asking is why we group fluctuations in a medium into something sensible and describable homogeneously as the SOUND/wave.
"Monsters cannot be announced. One cannot say: 'here are our monsters', without immediately turning the monsters into pets." -Jacques Derrida

Baudin
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 18, 2008
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 42

Posted 04/19/08 - 04:34 AM:	#8
quickly wrote: [quote] The question seems answerable without determining the objectivity of causality in its existence or being. What you’re asking is why we group fluctuations in a medium into something sensible and describable homogeneously as the SOUND/wave. Completely true if we only look at non discrete entities. Existance is usually described in functions with a movement somewhere and a bit of time mixed into the equation. And when we look at things like sound waves (or light, or representations of energie in general) we may think about how the mind constitutes events which are perceived as having causal relationships. I looked at the question a bit more general the example given is but a fraction of possible entities of which we can ask ourselves if they can stop existing. Let me give another example: In a particle exalerator they have experimented with small particles at high velocities. One of the strange obeservations was that the particle passed the end mark before passing the halfway mark. Now this can mean that time has a different meaning at those speeds and size, but we could also conclude that the cause does not always have to precede the effect. If this last statement is true then yes, existance can be the effect of some not yet happened cause. And therefore something can in effect cease to exist. I think it is all in the definition. Existing in my oppinion means "being able to cause an effect". To stop existing is to stop being able to effect other existing entities. If something effects something else just because it ceases to exist it by definition still exists. I think the question inevitably leads to a paradox.
“What do I think of Western civilisation? I think it would be a very good idea.” --Mahatma Gandhi

funky
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2008
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 11

Posted 04/19/08 - 01:54 PM:	#9
jerrada wrote: There is no straight answer to your question... but there are many theories. Firstly, Mass cannot be created or destroyed, merely conserved. Does this apply to quantum particles that seem to pop in and out of existence? Although they are simply jumping through time, are you saying that they do not cease to exist but only cease to exist in our particular space/time continuum? Does it have to exist in the now, in any way, shape or form to be classed as existing? Or is it simply enough to know that is can be? (but lets not go quantum...) Edited by Landlady on 04/19/08 - 07:51 PM. Reason: Capitalization

rabeldin
Probabalistic Philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2003
Location: Puerto Rico
Total Topics: 30
Total Posts: 5415

Posted 04/20/08 - 08:25 AM:	#10
What does it mean for a sound "to exist"? This is a question that I must answer before I can proceed to answer the specific question about the existence of a wave whose energy falls to zero. We say that "people" exist yet we call them "ghosts" after they die and worry about their existence vis-a-vis "spirits" or "souls" which do or do not exist depending on your metaphysical assumptions.
Leave no assumption unquestioned.

quickly
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 29, 2007
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 126

Posted 04/20/08 - 03:39 PM:	#11
rabeldin: That's the point, but I think using "ghosts" and "spirits" as an example isn't really applicable. There you're talking about projections, manifestations of psychic energies (if you believe in such and such an energy), or merely the notion (intuition) of presence. But the sound wave is only analogous when one defines the existence of the ghost or spirit such that it exists by virtue of, to borrow Baudin's definition, its ability to cause an effect. The sound wave is different because it has empirically verifiable content, a vast body of knowledge connecting the wave to the sound phenomenon, and the bivalent property of being accepted to have subjective and (~~objective~~) existenc(e/es). The ghost, on the other hand, only has, as far as we (democratically, communicably) know, a subjective existence, and no ~~objective~~ (agreed upon) coorelate. That's what I was trying to answer earlier. Are each of these unique entities, or modalities of one: SOUND/wave; sound/WAVE; SOUND/WAVE; sound/wave; sound; wave.
"Monsters cannot be announced. One cannot say: 'here are our monsters', without immediately turning the monsters into pets." -Jacques Derrida

Prime_Mover
Alpha/Omega

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 21, 2008
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 315

Posted 05/02/08 - 10:43 PM:	#12
I think it should be rather clear from this discussion that subjectively, some entity can cease to exist. Nothing which I am thinking right now is obligated to exist for the rest of eternity; in fact, all of the contents of my brain, the perceptions, concepts, and qualia, will cease to exist when the physical matter of my brain is transformed into another group of entities. Like someone mentioned before, the matter of my brain is not destroyed to the point where the matter that comprises it no longer exists. Only the existence of my brain, as the concept of "brain" entails, will cease to exist. But this "brain" is simply a subjective construct, a name attached to something taking on a particular form. To debate this much more interesting question, however, I see the property of existence as present in anything which is described with language. Words cannot describe nonexistence because they are designed to express, attribute, and communicate certain properties. If existence is a property in all things that can be described, and the OP specifies "something" (which, as a word with definite meaning, implies "existing"), and nothing can act contradictory to its nature (a self-evident fact), nothing can act contradictory to its property of existence. Going out of existence signifies ~E, as opposed to the E of its initial state.
The Promethean Movement http://www.promethea.org

alliop
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 16, 2008
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 37

Posted 05/18/08 - 03:41 PM:	#13
When you say a jar exists what you are really saying is that there is matter shaped to be a jar. Now when you just slightly shift one atom does that jar no longer exist? At one point do enough atoms get shifted so far that it no longer is the jar it once was? I think that even if we were to answer whether or not something can really exist we are then left with the problem of, when is no longer what it once was?

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.