What does it mean to say something exists and something is real? And what is the difference if there is any? For example, take a software program. Is it more fitting to say that it exists or that it is real?
For most "ordinary" people, and even some philosophers, "to be real" and "to exist" are the same thing. But not for all philosophers. Plato (and his followers, the Neoplatonics) famously believed that the things of the ordinary world, which might arguably be said to "exist" were nevertheless not "real" as he defined realness. Other idealists like Bishop Berekely, might arguably be viewed as having similar views, whether they expressed them in those terms or not.
Even from this point of view, however, it's far from clear if the software program is more or less "real" than other things that "exist." It has no soul, which argues against it being real in Platonic terms. It is abstract and conceptual, however, and those are qualities strongly associated with Platonic realness.
For most purposes, everyday and philosophical, reality and existence, 'real' and 'exists', are interchangeable. There's a distinction of sorts in Meinong. What exists, does so in space/ time. But we might also want to say that numbers, meanings, propositional contents are real but 'subsist'. The common meaning of propositions - that between 'The dog is red' and 'Le chien est rouge' - could be real but only subsist, not exist in space/ time. It is real in the sense that it can be the subject of true sentences or statements.
To (try to) prevent a tidal wave of criticism let me say that I am aware of the difficulties that beset the putative reality of common meanings, numbers and the rest. But if (IF) they are real, as can be non-absurdly argued, then they do not occupy space/ time and so we have a distinction between the existent and the real.
The distinction is sometimes cast as one between fundamental and derivative entities. Everything exists, but some things might not really exist. For example, you might hold that the ultimate constituents of reality are the entities posited by fundamental physics. Everything else is some complex of these things, and is not fundamental.
Although views like this are common, casting it in terms of what “really exists” is less common. The most prominent proponent of such a view is Kit Fine in his “The Question of Realism”. “To be real” would be to exist in reality. (Though I don’t believe he holds the strict physicalism described above.)
Just to complement previous comments: there are no differences, except for some philosophers. I would add that there could be a subtle difference on the common language: reality is usually associated with perception, and existence, to interaction.
- Can something exist and be unreal? Yes. You can state that a mathematical model exists, because someone created it, and you can use and interact with it (e.g. input a value and get an output from it). But a mathematical model is unreal, it's just an idea you can interact with, it's not part of our perception of reality.
- Can something be real and don't exist? Yes. Death is an example. It is part of our perception of reality, we live for a limited time and then, we die. But it's not something we can interact with, it's just an idea about something that doesn't exist. Another example is the Infinite, or the nothingness. They are real, but we can't interact with them. If so, they would exist. And nothingness, for example, can't exist.
That is a really good question best one I've heard in a long time. You had me for a minute, but the clear answer is reality is reality based. It's subjective to The Observer. So you define what is real. A cup may exist. But unless you decide it's a cup it is just something sitting on the counter but it still exists. So it's not really a cup until you decide it's a cup.
Great question. This question is best addressed with an answer that "best" separates, differentiates, and clarifies their differences. I use the word "best" because I will be the first to admit the answer I am providing here is not formal, conventional, nor even established. This is my interpretation and I not presenting it for sake of argument. I offer it only as a SINGLE mean of understanding, which is mine.
Let me start with the word 'exist' (a verb used without an object) and its sibling 'existence' (its qualitative state or attribution). The word exist often refers to be or to live, more specifically to CONTINUE to be or to live, as in the phrase "poverty still exists". I believe this convention does not capture the essence of the word because it suggests two misleading and limiting implications. First is the idea that existence in some way refers to an actual entity, living or inanimate. Second that existence is temporal. In other words, existence is equivalent to the actuality of any object, condition, or being and that actuality has a beginning (creation) and an ending (termination). I would like to offer a different dimension of the word, with coordinates not associated with reality and time, but rather, established from the root of the word.
The word 'exist' derives from the Latin words 'ex' meaning out (of) or away (from), and 'sistere' meaning to stand. So its literal origin of meaning was "to stand out" or "stand apart from". Think of a police line up and suspect #3 steping forward. Suspect #3 now appears before you, distinguished from the group of others. The witness can point to him, identify him, describe him. #3 is a particular person in a particular place and time. Are the other suspects real? Of course. But I would propose they don't exist. The others are not definable, distinguishable, or even recognizable because they are not the immediate subject (no pun intended). Let me try another way.
Not long ago I stood before a large photograph of a hummingbird in an art gallery, and what made the photo so captivating is that the background was so blurry all you could make out was some vague, ethereal colors, but the hummingbird, in focus, appeared to pop out from this background. The bird was the subject of the photo. The background most likely consisted of trees, mountains, clouds, a backyard or such. Were the contents of the background real? Certainly, but they didn't exist. The observer could not identify, differentiate, or understand them. For this "standing out" or focus requires an observer. Am I saying entities have an existence only in the regard of an observer? YES. Is this the conventional, proper, or established definition? NO.
Once an observer takes notice of an object, entity, concept, feeling or being, REAL OR IMAGINARY, it now declares its existence. This existence lends way to discovery, inspection, definition, clarification, classification, explanation, comprehension, and most importantly understanding. In fact, ANYTHING (concept, emotion, object, situation, condition, fantasy, being) that can be defined, explained, illustrated, or named exists. If this is confusing, try this. Try to define, explain, illustrate or name anything that DOESN'T exist. Try your best to demonstrate it. It can't be done. If in your retort, a dragon comes to mind, consider this. There is no evidence (yet) that dragons are real. But ask someone to define, describe, or draw one and they could - provided the concept of dragon was presented to them by picture, animation, or story. Show them a picture series of a unicorn, a mermaid, Santa Claus, and a dragon and they will point it out to you. Further, they could likely offer attributes within their description of a dragon (winged, enormous, fire-breathing, green serpent that incinerated dozens of English knights to save Blondie).
Why is this explanation the best? Because it clearly differentiates between entities that exist (subjective presentation) from those that are real (objective actuality). In other words, this distinction clarifies the difference between entities that are merely perceptual from those actual. For instance there are entities in our universe that possess actuality and are objectively real but do not exist to you or me because these entities don't stand out to us. Or here's another way.
I once heard someone state that gravity didn't exist until 1687. It got a laugh out of everyone around, even me. But now I understand AND concur with that statement. Of course the forces of gravity and the laws governing that reality have always been actual, for those forces need no subjective observer to impart effect. Those forces shaped every physical entity in our universe. Gravity is real. But when did the nature and laws of gravity first exist? When they stood out to Newton!
Hope my effort helped or, at very least, gave alternate meaning.
First of all, there MUST be a difference. It has been argued for probably centuries, and it must come to a end.
Existing Vs. Being Real
Let us use the analogy: Illusion
Illusion, is arguably both true and false. True in a sense that it is and can be presented, therefore exists.. and False, because its nature is referred as fallacious and deceitful.
In an Illusion, The presence of an object, proves its existence. But IF the accuracy of the object is counterfactual and fabricated, therefore it is false.
Matter and energy are commonly both TRUE by existence and TRUE by accuracy. But information is ALWAYS (even in emptiness, without space and time) TRUE in existence and TRUE/FALSE by accuracy, it really depends on how you translate an information.
In conclusion There is indeed a difference: Existence: The presence of an object. ——————————- To be real: The true value of an information, or sometimes, object.