This is an interesting question. It is possible to approach a possible answer to the question in terms of phenomenology. From that point of view, it is not so much a question "If there is" (the scientific question) but rather "what is there that is?". In our experience, natural phenomena provide us with a treasure-trove of natural puzzles. And it appears that a complete answer to "what is there that is?" has not been given for any phenomenon.

Well in fact actual facts should be approved what ever tha case but sometimes if things are not present the person should admit that thing is not present

If I'm interpreting this correctly, then you are asking about the status of historical events in determining the nature of future events. Is that about right?

If so, I would say that the significance of past events is always being changed by what happens in the present. A great discovery at one point in history may be utterly eclipsed by the subsequent discovery of a flaw in the logic or method of demonstration. It may also simply be viewed as redundant when a new interpretation develops and is seen as being more useful.

Similarly, an insight that is ignored for decades may come to be pivotal in future developments in that field.

History is a process of creating, revising, and discarding interpretations of events. The power of 'city hall' is not the weight of history so much as the illusion of stability that institutions can provide. If you can see through that illusion of stability then you can change 'the world' as we know it.

This is an interesting question. It is possible to approach a possible answer to the question in terms of phenomenology. From that point of view, it is not so much a question "If there is" (the scientific question) but rather "what is there that is?". In our experience, natural phenomena provide us with a treasure-trove of natural puzzles. And it appears that a complete answer to "what is there that is?" has not been given for any phenomenon.

There is a second part of the question that also needs to be considered, namely, "is what is" changeable. I would say No.

Quite interesting question. Many times this doubt also comes into my mind but I can't clear it till now.

From this discussion my doubt will also be cleared most probably.

Thanks for sharing this interesting question.

Regards,

Nitish

Facts cannot be approved or denied as such. Rather, facts are susceptible either of interpretation or invitation to change things. Nonetheless, I think that what is is not what it is necessarily or absolutely. Said in terms of grammar (f.i.), vis-à-vis the indicative mood we have conditional or also subjective; in other words, the possibility of considering: "what if x is not the case" or: "what if it could be the case that y".

Carlos: Do you think X is mutable to Y? My real question is 'is there some unique X, (not equal to either y,z), that cannot be changed?

If I walk to the store taking the route A-B-C I might encounter along the way v,w,x,y,and z though another route to get to the store A-C-D is possible and along the route instead of v,w,x,y,and z, I encountered also t and u. Though t,u,v,w,x,y,z are all in the same set with identical properties and I can without difficulty visualize t and u using criteria of familiarity, can I claim v,w,x,y, and z "is what is" ?(exclusively). Would it be ethical to assume or to synthesize t and u in the lab though they are not logically includable parts of the world territory but if I make them myself; (whether or not t and u already exist somewhere in the universe)..would the path A-C-D be a forgery? I could make myself famous with a terrific synthesis claiming to help mankind 'forge' his way to the future?

to add: if the unit of change for the chemist is the atom, for the biologist the gene, the physicist the particle, if it seems logical to equate the atoms composing the genes of the biology with those of the chemist, all underlined with the particle of the physicist, instead does the finger point for the real "is as is" to be in the mind. (I think the real debacle, using description from Carlos from another RG discussion, seems to be of recent history involving identity and identity fraud).

Coming to mind....is a world of ":is as is" narrower or broader, if "intention is 90 percent of the law" is there a differential role of well intention and poor intention?

Dear Marvin, as we know, there are some logics that do not obbey or follow the principle of the tird excluded (such as relevant logic or also intuitionistic logic). There are even some logics that do not obbey, either, the principle of (non-)contradiction, (such as many-valued logics or also paraconsistent logics).

Identity - apologize for this -, is just a belief, namely of the foundational beleifs of the western civilization. The principle of identity does not know of history, evolution or, well catastrophes (including debacles).

Vis-à-vis the being (which is the ontological translation of identity) I am much more concerned about thinking the possible (one mean can be through counterfactuals), that is, inded the mere possibility that X is not the main or unique reality. Thinking (and especially living!) in the world of the "is" is, indeed too narrow. Science, afterr all, consists in discovering new possibilitiues to what is or appears. This shows the path for the greatness of human spirit and mind.

Carlos : There 'are' (excuse the pun-see below) the song lyrics "a lesson too late for the learning, made of sand, made of sand".

I have read of the South occurances such as ' a man walked up to him and asked if " " was his name, to which he replied "yes" and was spontaneously shot to death. In description it was said that things had gotten so serious that 'inside and out" seemed the same."

If you are referring to the "greatness" of the spirit, from my "is'-ology" conjecture these conditions all fit the notion that there must exist a head (spirit/mind) grown so big physically it cannot get back in the house. As absurb as this sounds there are (must exist) still, possibilities....I can think of some....a plant if it is constricted from growing can apply a force that can be vast...from under the ground currents there in Venezuala so that vis-a-vis there is a large head unable to navigate the door way. Anything restricted, when it must grow, can exert force of any proportions. I have seen newpaper reports of multi-headed babies born ('are'-ology) that had been confiscated by authorities and handed over to medical fraternities (the report was from S. America). Imagine a two headed body with a gun in the hand, who has say on the trigger is the one figuratively 'inside'....could a doctor/third person discriminate, not knowing who is who with enough certainty to risk gaining control of the gun. Similarly is not multiple personality not a viable example of identity fraud? I think the conditions of the South from description fit this etiology. It is not the case of finding the hand on the trigger, but to determine the mind on it, to locate the whole two headed body that 'is'...in this case the exception is made X or Y vis-a-vis 'are'.

It goes without saying that there are certain (= normal) restrictins to what is. Physical, chimical, cultural..., depending on the set considered. And yet, it is not the set of constraints that define what is. In contrast, any physicial or living system is in spite of its limitations (!). Existing means facing and betting for a larger horizon (of possibilities) rahther than an actual set of conditions.

The issue encompasses as well cosmological as cultural, logical and mathematical, political and ontological concerns.

I have just mentioned math? Well, let's not forget about the meaning and scope of cohomology!

Shall we go back to Shakespeare at this point? Man being the measure of all things? Our view of 'what is' is a model created by us, to support our concerns. If we consider that our perspective is all we have to go on, then we stop having discussions about 'what is' and return to the disrupted humanist project of understanding what it means to collectively create 'what is'. Perhaps then we can also begin to articulate our responsibility - and become accountable- for 'what is'. Think of the present human-induced climate change arguments. For me, this is the perfect example of humanity wrestling with itself over a collective recognition that all those mountains we moved created consequences that we must accept as our responsibility.

@Leah Mason: ... If we consider that our perspective is all we have to go on, then we stop having discussions about 'what is' and return to the disrupted humanist project of understanding what it means to collectively create 'what is'.

You have raised a profound question, namely, whether it is possible either individually or collectively create "what is". From a phenomenology perspective or from a scientific or artistic or any other perspective, we can observe what is. However, I do not think it is possible for us to create what is.

Perhaps you mean by "create what is" is that we reshape the materials at hand in the world to arrive at a fabrication (agglomeration) of the existing materials. For example, we can build a bridge to span a river (a new observable) but the new bridge is made of materials that are assembled from what is available to us in the world. Do you agree?

Leah,

Your observation about creating "what is" has profound implications.

In terms of Islamic philosophy, only God can create what is. For more about this, see the attached paper by Oliver Leaman on classical Islamic philosophy.

Leah,

From a Kantian perspective, there are two worlds, namely, the nominal world which is the real world and the phenomenal world which is the world we perceive. And, from Kant's point of view, we create the objects we see in the phenomenal world. But those objects are not considered real by Kant. For more about this, see the attached paper by Jennifer Nelson.

Leah, James: Re: "...whether it is possible either individually or collectively to create "what is"."

This description is very reminescent of post-modern philosophy i.e. "the truth is not discovered, but created". If walk in the sand from point A to point B to see better, I would have left footprints..they are the creation product of my search or discovery of whatever it is I observe from the new perspective at B.

I think there must be a distinction made between "truth" and "what is". Post modernism is a very active school, involves a movement, but I cannot see how it can be thought to be self containing or complete as is my criteria for a school of philosophy. The foot prints are a created truth but where is the beach, even the (necessarily) different field of view from each perspective (e.g. A or B).

The ideation in postmodernism seems to be far penetrating. In this mornings news features is a report of the newly discovered (and sought after) 'smoking gun" from the Big Bang i.e.Velocity greater than the velocity of light, potentially violating the theory of relativity, is explained according to a universal expansion ..i.e. "the-velocity-of -light" itself an entity is 'moved from place A to place B at very great speeds. How can one account for discovery of evidence to support such a notion?...'creation' of evidence (that moves at a rate percpetion is able to contemplate), by ? (that 'moves' faster than energy). This is post modern at its' extreme. Einsteins problems are strictly of a philosophical nature, cant be found from experiment. I feel safe from assumption that existence is a smoking gun perpetually to big to fit in the pants, in assuming that the only potential surviving facets of inquiry are a (macro)observer, a (macro) phenomenom, and distance between points.... Einstein reported that facts upon which the general theory of relativity were based "were potentially observed and then reconsidered (so that false testimony is the consequence).

It is possibly the tracks of physical application/investigation that are the only creation product and ultimately the only potential discovery.

Malinskowi, in anthopology, advanced the idea that time is not applicable when applied to structure for understanding ..... witness engagement involves only change in conceptual structure. Here again 'is' the manifestation of cognitive allegory in the physical... Kants worlds, the nominal, real, phenomenological are bridged physically by distance.

A false-account bearing accounting is a necessity.

Marvin,

Your write: If walk in the sand from point A to point B to see better, I would have left footprints..they are the creation product of my search or discovery of whatever it is I observe from the new perspective at B.

The footprints you leave in the sand are a reworking and reshaping of existing materials, namely, sand and water. Hence, your footprints are technically not a creation but rather works of art.

James: I think there are but two kinds of behavior, action and reaction. Action I think is equivilent to "creating"..is restricted to the domain 'god'; art is reaction, walking on the beech is reaction, the resulting footprints human artifact; some human artifact, art is artifact, conveys more truth than others. With regards to art and science, I would not object to the classifying of Atomic Physics 'art', but the bombardment of volumes/masses with high energy in experiment I regard to be 'action' (there are many who believe such experiments leave nature damaging tiny black holes in their wake) or cloning to change the inheritable characteristics of species. Humans are employed for survival to react appropriately to the environment, involves all aspects of life but unfortunately nature does not automatically preclude the "action" that can occur when we delve into study involving observation, using prosthetics, of unobservables. There is obviously something gone wrong that needs faithful accounting.

to add: Western society is innundated with permissiveness. Post modernism is extremely permissive, it attaches truth to the path of events that are open to the free will of choice, appends to it humanism and science that are not topics of its' doctrine, lends its appeal, but is no more than a contemporary resource of liberalism. Islamic religion is broad where Christianity and Western Judio-Christian are narrower, with its' treatment to highlight perspective in discourse emphasising that positive nourishment only occurs from what arises from 'within', the individual, family, culture. Converts to Islam are still considered outsiders. From the contemporary western perspective, Islam is permissive not to dictate upon the means of assertion of authority, though none can be viewed in a historical sense to behave as angels. Contemporalily ideology centered revolt seems to be at world doors in which post-modernism, advertising liberalism, human freedom, falsely catagorized as philosophy, is the most appealing, advancing ideology.

In the accounting department the tables have open undefined spaces mistakenly sought out within 'discovery' rather than 'philosophy' categories, computers, information technology, are tools of philosophy, computers cannot philosophize, seem to be taken as if able to give totals from columns with empty rows. filled in by users within their approach ..i.e. the (complex) "rendition" is a projection from subjective ideologies. Perhaps from an open imagination and unbiased assesment comparative visual renditions might be possible that do not either abett or offend this party or that one.is more a matter of common human inclinations, rates and history. If there is a 'there are' (entwined what is's), a complexly concealed unique 'what is", maybe it might be possible to demonstrate how one in the 'what are' pair is detrimentally crossing the path of the other, especially If all the ontology seems, as it does to me, to be present but confused, ordered incorrectly.

Marvin,

You write: Action I think is equivilent to "creating"..is restricted to the domain 'god'; art is reaction, walking on the beech is reaction, the resulting footprints human artifact; some human artifact, art is artifact, conveys more truth than others.

I agree with your distinction based on your softened view of "create". Perhaps you agree that it is appropriate to distinguish different forms of create:

1. create something from nothing. In this form of creation, one invents the raw materials (puts materials in place that were not in the world when we started) and then takes the invented raw materials and puts them together in a new way. For example, the raw material can be a postulate that sets forth assumptions about a mathematical structure such as a semigroup, introduction of new symbols, and introduction of new definitions. And a theorem based on postulates, symbols and defilnitions that have been introduced would be this form of creation.

2. create something from existing materials or from existing muscle structures. It looks like this is the form of "create" you are describing. In the first instance, we have artistic creations and in the second instance we have actions such as walking.

Marvin,

Your walking example is a neat idea! Each time we walk, we fill space in a new way, producing a new form of filled space unique, resulting from a muscle movements. Perhaps you will agree that everyone walks in a slightly different way. Hence, each person who walks is creating a dynamically changing space-filling volume.

Dear Professor Bani-Hani,

Please say more about this. When you wrote "because", what were you thinking?

James What I seek to distinguish is nature from human artifact. The three categories of creating you describe, from nothing, from muscle motion, and the artistic I view as two categories. Human artifact, and the flow of nature. Human artifact I divide into two categories, appropriate and inappropriate reaction, inappropriate reaction I place in the same class as action in a world divided to include only the witnessible physical frame, without beginnings and ends. The idea of creation from noting is beyond the rational intellect, we have only the evidence as a momentum possessed to anything...from a unique action that is not capture-able to totals. I believe that momentum, like energy, is also conserved in both numbers and vectorized parts that add up to an unknowable/incomprehensible whole. This entails that although energy may not be created or destroyed that (unlike energy that is not logically described with vectors) momentum can be applied that opposes directions conserved in nature. In following, I consider the application of inappropriate momentum to be inappropriate reaction that is in the same class as action... In my mind God is the momentum existing in all corners, the application of an invisible hand in description whose origin is unknowable, and must be axiomatic to inquiry. The only appropriate reaction is discourse rather than invasion/dissection. Hunting for food is discourse, walking on the sand is discourse, even rechanneling a river is discourse, but action upon facets that are interior/internal from a human perspective to alter the momentum vector, though, is not discourse but encounter and confrontation in the blind, i.e. with inherited/inheritable, re- transmitted facets, especially is not discourse when it is upon mammals that are constructed similarly as ourselves (i.e. mammals with nervous systems), or similarly upon elements of the food chain upon which all balances/existence rely. Though men cannot actually create, they can confront, engage and disturb the motion that proceeds from the only contemplatible description of a godless world, absolute stillness. When science, rationality is the topic absolute beginnings and ends have to be omitted from the white board, and a way to orient pursuits in this light has to be accomplished. I hear more now-a-days that "we shouldn't do something just because we can do it", but the meaning I believe is not absorbed as deeply as needed.

James Re: "everyone walks in a slightly different way. Hence, each person who walks is creating a dynamically changing space-filling volume."

I think that the energy potential changes on each motion, e.g. when I walk across the street my energy potential has changed. Energy potential depends on path, net work accomplished and location: I envision to be a little like the "developmental field" of embryology where it is postulated that the distribution,organization and orientation of the cell, and surrounding tissue direct developmental motions of the embryo, but the physical field is vast in comparison, change too small to be un-measureable, if there were a standard available for comparison for measurement, we probably see only a minute amount of the energy bound to life processes, if the human mind and hand created the a-bomb, survived it, it probably also exceeds if, though impossible to conceive or measure I think it is an apparition that human activity is unable to hurt the world.

Marviln,

I think we are on the same page. You have deftly interpreted the creation categories that I suggested. Well done!

Hi Marvin,

Thanks a lot for including me in the thread. However, I have to comply with various deadlines and if I get into the discussion of this interesting topic I will miss those deadlines. So I'll try to catch back when I have delivered all I have to deliver.

best,

Elías

It depends on the observer.

To some, "what is not" is, and to others, not.

Within existential theory, it does not matter, for what is, is, no matter the paradox assertion of what is, "is not".

To our restricted human minds, the answer seemingly remains: "is, is is" even if not.

Golden rule: The moment judgment - as bias - is introduced, the logic fails.

Dear Jim,

“There is a second part of the question that also needs to be considered, namely, "is what is" changeable. I would say No.”

Your view seems to be right. However, the uncertainty of the recognition of that, what exists, is too high regarding our “weak” sense organs and the whole sensory process of orientation. More explicitly, it may be too risky and unsure to distinguish and comprehend what there is. If one does not know – cannot distinguish - what there is, can one prove the existence of it?