Skip to main content
Philosophy

Return to Answer

fixed stupid iphone typing errors
Source Link
Mitch
Mitch
  • 3.4k
  • 1
  • 24
  • 32
  • wikipedia, as much as it is a supposedly self correcting medium, is not ecessarilynecessarily a definitive account of anything.
  • your question could just as well be about motion or space (based on the given definitions) or even more so about how definitions of physical phenomena work. At some point, to make definitions usable, they refer to others definitions and those to others, but it is not so easy to deal with infinite regress ("turtles all the way down"). TherThere needs to be an 'end' which is either explicitly terminal,that is, altogether undefined (or rests on intuition or inarticulate gesture) or osis circular (as on your given example).
  • whether defined well or not, does a definition make time(or space or motion) exist? No, I think things 'exist' without needing to be defined by humans (for some intuitive notion of 'exist'). Time will elapse without our awareness of it. Or more relevantly, we can have a concept of time that works for others who may not be awarenofaware of the concept.
  • more generally, does a concept need to be well-defined to exist? I think that is really dependent on what you want 'exist' to mean. Suppose you consider a circular or an inconsistent set of definitions is taken to be nonexistence. That doesn't mean there's not a better workable definition.
  • wikipedia, as much as it is a supposedly self correcting medium, is not ecessarily a definitive account of anything.
  • your question could just as well be about motion or space (based on the given definitions) or even more so about how definitions of physical phenomena work. At some point, to make definitions usable, they refer to others definitions and those to others, but it is not so easy to deal with infinite regress ("turtles all the way down"). Ther needs to be an 'end' which is either explicitly terminal,that is, altogether undefined (or rests on intuition or inarticulate gesture) or os circular (as on your given example).
  • whether defined well or not, does a definition make time(or space or motion) exist? No, I think things 'exist' without needing to be defined by humans (for some intuitive notion of 'exist'). Time will elapse without our awareness of it. Or more relevantly, we can have a concept of time that works for others who may not be awarenof the concept.
  • more generally, does a concept need to be well-defined to exist? I think that is really dependent on what you want 'exist' to mean. Suppose you consider a circular or an inconsistent set of definitions is taken to be nonexistence. That doesn't mean there's not a better workable definition.
  • wikipedia, as much as it is a supposedly self correcting medium, is not necessarily a definitive account of anything.
  • your question could just as well be about motion or space (based on the given definitions) or even more so about how definitions of physical phenomena work. At some point, to make definitions usable, they refer to others definitions and those to others, but it is not so easy to deal with infinite regress ("turtles all the way down"). There needs to be an 'end' which is either explicitly terminal,that is, altogether undefined (or rests on intuition or inarticulate gesture) or is circular (as on your given example).
  • whether defined well or not, does a definition make time(or space or motion) exist? No, I think things 'exist' without needing to be defined by humans (for some intuitive notion of 'exist'). Time will elapse without our awareness of it. Or more relevantly, we can have a concept of time that works for others who may not be aware of the concept.
  • more generally, does a concept need to be well-defined to exist? I think that is really dependent on what you want 'exist' to mean. Suppose you consider a circular or an inconsistent set of definitions is taken to be nonexistence. That doesn't mean there's not a better workable definition.
Fixed spelling
Source Link
Mitch
Mitch
  • 3.4k
  • 1
  • 24
  • 32
  • wikipedia, as much as it is a supposedly self correcting medium, is not ecessarily a definitive account of anything.
  • your question could just as well be about motion or space (based on the given definitions) or even more so about how definitions of physical phenomena work. At some point, to make definitions usable, they refer to others definitions and those to others, but it is not so easy to deal with infinite regress ("turtles all the way down"). Ther needs to be an 'end' which is either explicitly terminal,that is, altogether undefined (or rests on intuition or inarticulate gesture) or os circular (as on your given example).
  • whether defined well or not, does a definition make time(or space or motion) exist? No, I think things 'exist' without needing to be defined by humans (for some intuitive notion of 'exist'). Time will elapse without our awareness of it. Or more relevantly, we can have a concept of time that works for others who may not be awarenof the concept.
  • more generally, does a concept need to be well-defined to exist? I think that is really dependent on what you want 'exist' to mean. Suppose you consider a circular or an inconsistent set of definitions is taken to be nonexistence. That doesn't mean ther's nitthere's not a better workable definition.
  • wikipedia, as much as it is a supposedly self correcting medium, is not ecessarily a definitive account of anything.
  • your question could just as well be about motion or space (based on the given definitions) or even more so about how definitions of physical phenomena work. At some point, to make definitions usable, they refer to others definitions and those to others, but it is not so easy to deal with infinite regress ("turtles all the way down"). Ther needs to be an 'end' which is either explicitly terminal,that is, altogether undefined (or rests on intuition or inarticulate gesture) or os circular (as on your given example).
  • whether defined well or not, does a definition make time(or space or motion) exist? No, I think things 'exist' without needing to be defined by humans (for some intuitive notion of 'exist'). Time will elapse without our awareness of it. Or more relevantly, we can have a concept of time that works for others who may not be awarenof the concept.
  • more generally, does a concept need to be well-defined to exist? I think that is really dependent on what you want 'exist' to mean. Suppose you consider a circular or an inconsistent set of definitions is taken to be nonexistence. That doesn't mean ther's nit a better workable definition.
  • wikipedia, as much as it is a supposedly self correcting medium, is not ecessarily a definitive account of anything.
  • your question could just as well be about motion or space (based on the given definitions) or even more so about how definitions of physical phenomena work. At some point, to make definitions usable, they refer to others definitions and those to others, but it is not so easy to deal with infinite regress ("turtles all the way down"). Ther needs to be an 'end' which is either explicitly terminal,that is, altogether undefined (or rests on intuition or inarticulate gesture) or os circular (as on your given example).
  • whether defined well or not, does a definition make time(or space or motion) exist? No, I think things 'exist' without needing to be defined by humans (for some intuitive notion of 'exist'). Time will elapse without our awareness of it. Or more relevantly, we can have a concept of time that works for others who may not be awarenof the concept.
  • more generally, does a concept need to be well-defined to exist? I think that is really dependent on what you want 'exist' to mean. Suppose you consider a circular or an inconsistent set of definitions is taken to be nonexistence. That doesn't mean there's not a better workable definition.
Source Link
Mitch
Mitch
  • 3.4k
  • 1
  • 24
  • 32

  • wikipedia, as much as it is a supposedly self correcting medium, is not ecessarily a definitive account of anything.
  • your question could just as well be about motion or space (based on the given definitions) or even more so about how definitions of physical phenomena work. At some point, to make definitions usable, they refer to others definitions and those to others, but it is not so easy to deal with infinite regress ("turtles all the way down"). Ther needs to be an 'end' which is either explicitly terminal,that is, altogether undefined (or rests on intuition or inarticulate gesture) or os circular (as on your given example).
  • whether defined well or not, does a definition make time(or space or motion) exist? No, I think things 'exist' without needing to be defined by humans (for some intuitive notion of 'exist'). Time will elapse without our awareness of it. Or more relevantly, we can have a concept of time that works for others who may not be awarenof the concept.
  • more generally, does a concept need to be well-defined to exist? I think that is really dependent on what you want 'exist' to mean. Suppose you consider a circular or an inconsistent set of definitions is taken to be nonexistence. That doesn't mean ther's nit a better workable definition.