To exist ontologically is to exist as a fundamental entity (non-dividable).
Fundamental entity is non-dividable. Problem: At what level you stop dividing?
By this definition fundamental entities are:
- space/time and field
Following entities are not fundamental:
Why this non-divisibility property is important for this definition?
- This is important for philosophical context, for this question.
- Because it's important to agree on terms.
We can observe particles empirically*.
Chairs do not exist. What does it mean exit? to exist - to have actual being; be: to be - to exist
to exist - to be above zero (being-ness is possible to measure in a scale from 0 to infinity?) to have a measurable property. ->
to exist - to have a property/-ies. to exist - to differentiate from nothing.
what about fictional beings/concepts? Superman has properties - Superman can fly. Written in the comics. Only academic sources are allowed. ()
to have a property/-ies. ? Chair has properties.
Physics says only a)
- Chair consists of fundamental particles.
- Chair doesn't exist.
Where does physics say that chair doesn't exist.
Chair is divisible. Divisible - object can be divided.
When you give something a name you bring that idea into existence.
Chair is an idea.
People group particles into groups and name them as things or objects. Since you can create some arbitrary grouping. Then any grouping is not useful, doesn't make sense.
Some groupings are more useful then others. For people to communicate.
What is language? Why people use language?
Some groupings are more useful then others.
To exist ontologically is being able to be distinguished as a grouping of particles. If this separation is useful for people then it will be used, by definition.