So here is a deep ontological question with significant epistemological consequences that I would like to survey your thoughts on. And it is a two-part question because I am not sure if, or even how, they can be separated so I will ask them together: Is there a difference between 'real' and 'exist'? That is, can something be real but not exist; or conversely, can something exist but not be real?

It almost seems as though there is no difference, that these are interchangeable terms. In other words, to say something is real is to say it exists, and to say that it exists is to say it is real. So is this right? Is there no difference? What does it mean for X to be real?

One might answer, "X is real when it corresponds to reality." But that is a definition of 'true', not 'real'. If reality is a predicate of something being true, then 'real' and 'true' are different things; they cannot be identicals or interchangeable terms, for if they were then this definition of true would amount to an empty tautology (i.e., "X is true when it is true"). So if correspondence with reality is what it means for X to be true, then what does it mean for X to be real? Or to exist?

Perhaps we can say, "X is real when it has existence." But no sooner is this said than immediately the force of my aforementioned question is made evident. Should we understand that 'real' and 'exist' are two different things? Can something be real but not exist, or exist but not be real? Or are they interchangeable terms, such that "X is real" is equal to "X exists" and vice versa? What are your thoughts on this? This is something my mind was chewing on all day at work today, and I've not yet reached a conclusive position.

(The ontological implications should be obvious. The epistemological ones are a little more subtle but easily made obvious. If knowledge has anything to do with warranted true belief, and if true has anything to do with correspondence with reality... well, there it is.)

Arcanus,

Good question, I would think that they are very closely correlated but, using logic circles, I would say that "exist" would be a large circle that "real" would almost fill. Almost all things that exist are real but some things that exist are not real because they are concepts like imaginary numbers, square root of -1, false emotions, and hallucinatory experiences. Now if you are asking if there are things that have physical form but are either not real or do not exist I would have to say that physical things are always both.

According to geometric dimensioning and tolerancing "true" things are never real because "true" refers to nominal values which are imaginary and unatainable. Hassan I. Sabbah was correct when he said that, "Nothing is true, everything is permitted."

I'm an Engineering Technician, so I don't even want to play at constructing an argument, but given that definition of "true" which is an industry standard according to National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), that should give you something fun to think about.

Crafting a definition for "exist" and "real" and deciding on how those two concepts interact could be a lifelong goal because they are just such overarching concepts; even moreso than even god. Using logic circles god would either be a circle outside of both, according to some theories I have read, or non-existent, or encompassing both. I think there would be no circle.

Rhizo

I can see what you are saying but, this is where I dislike philosophy. I borrwed from Dictionary.com here.

EDIT: For the record, I went into this post thinking "here we go again with pointless philosophy questions" but, while trying to form an appropriate answer I agree it is a good question. It is important to clearly define the words we use so that we may communicate clearly using those words. I had assumed the words interchangable but, with a bit of research and some thought my mind is changed. Well done.

the word 'exist' defined as 'To have actual being.' This does not mean always physical, someone can have a bad attitude and that attitude exists I figure.

'Real' is defined as:
1. true; not merely ostensible, nominal, or apparent: the real reason for an act.
2. existing or occurring as fact; actual rather than imaginary, ideal, or fictitious: a story taken from real life.
3. being an actual thing; having objective existence; not imaginary: The events you will see in the film are real and not just made up.

Exist seems to be a more broad term to describe anything we can observe. If you can observe it with any of your 5 senses it exists but, it may or may not be real. A hallucination exists but only as a hallucination, it is not real.

So my answer is this: to be real something MUST exist but, just because it exists does not mean it is real. The definition of the word existence does not assume reality, only subjective reality that may or may not be part of the actual, real world.

I agree with Demonaura. There is a slight distinction in the terms to make them different. Another example might be that magic exists, but it's not real. What we call magicians or magic is actually an illusion that gives us the perception of magic. But it's not real. Real would describe a quality of what exists.

I think the question is one of semantics. E=MC2. As far as I know whatever exists is on one side of the equation or the other. What exists outside of matter and energy?

(July 14, 2009 at 5:49 pm)LEDO Wrote: I think the question is one of semantics. E=MC2. As far as I know whatever exists is on one side of the equation or the other. What exists outside of matter and energy?

Well there is this unicorn that is both invisible and pink...

Rhizo

(July 14, 2009 at 7:05 pm)Rhizomorph13 Wrote:

(July 14, 2009 at 5:49 pm)LEDO Wrote: I think the question is one of semantics. E=MC2. As far as I know whatever exists is on one side of the equation or the other. What exists outside of matter and energy?

Well there this unicorn that is both invisible and pink...

Rhizo

Plus, the FSM constantly changes reality with his noodley appendages. I might not even be writing this reply!

You don't even exist Adrian. You're an illusion created by the FSM. Surely?

Although since it seems to be a kind of ongoing thing...perhaps it would be fair to say that you exist as an illusion??..I'm confused about that now:S..

EvF

(July 14, 2009 at 7:05 pm)Rhizomorph13 Wrote:

(July 14, 2009 at 5:49 pm)LEDO Wrote: I think the question is one of semantics. E=MC2. As far as I know whatever exists is on one side of the equation or the other. What exists outside of matter and energy?

Well there this unicorn that is both invisible and pink...

Rhizo

Well said. There is no such creature. That is the point. It can't be both invisible and pink anymore than something which is not real, exists. It is a simple contradiction of terms.

But if you are blind the colour red is invisible to you - yet it still exists. Invisible just means 'cannot be seen' right?

Whether there are observers or not...the colour red still exists as light, yeah?

And if so...then a pink invisible unicorn could exist, yeah? It could be pink but we just can't know it because it's invisible (just as we can't know it exists at all!) right?

EvF