To begin with, I know that
if I need X , does not necessarily mean that X exists.
But in some cases, it seems very convincing that
if I need X then X exists. These are some examples :
- If I am hungry (i.e need food) then food exists
- If I am thirsty then water exists
Although, I do not see this as conclusive evidence, or at least a valid reasoning ... Since, the apparent reasoning in these statements may well be due to the fact that there is some inductive reasoning operating in the background, thus :
- It is not that If I am hungry then food exists , but it is more like : If I take food then I won't be hungry based on previous experience, which implies (of necessity) that food exists.
So, in this case : the fact that I am hungry does not, per se, imply that food exists, by virtue of a direct link or necessity between "I need food" and "food exists".
But by virtue of previous particulars where I ate food and it did well with hunger , so it must be that food exists, because : I ate food implies it, because the inductive generalization implies it.
Otherwise, if I am wrong, is there a name for the evidence from need? is it even reasonable to say (in all or some cases) that If I need X then X exists? is it valid reasoning?
Any references will be very appreciated.
Note It is obvious that this reasoning does not seem valid, if I need a time machine to go back and change my past, it does not necessarily mean that time machines exist. , But what I am asking about, is only the apparently valid cases like I need water, I need food..etc.