How do you prove that something exists?

[JusMe]

Do you think proof of existence of something is dependent on other sentient perceptions of that thing? Curious to see thoughts on this :)

 

[LaVieEnRose]

If it doesn't disappear if you stop believing in it.

 

[Amakishiyo]

I think it's impossible to prove that something exists unless you are able to look at everything from the outside, the outside of existence, of the universe. At least these are things we think are real after all. It could also just depend on your definition, for example a way of thinking of mine is that once I die, all of existence ends, because my consciousness is the only reality that I know, once it ends, so does everything. Everyone is their own reality/existence/universe.

 

[TealPotassium5]

Don't think it's possible in the first place. Is my red your red? Is the world just a simulation? Are we just brains in a jar being observed?
"I think, therefore I am"
Can you prove that "other sentient perceptions" aren't just a fraction from your imagination? You never know you're dreaming until you wake up, unless you want to include lucid dreaming, out of body experience, astral projection...
But assuming "other people" are real, you can't tell you're referring to the same thing either. And if that's not enough, you can question your own perception of things. Are you "sane"? Is your memory tricking you? Does everything you know actually make logical sense?
To put vaguely and defining 'exist' as true to your experience in the moment tho changes things. In that case, you can stop worrying about existence and just live life, it exists because you experienced it, no outside validation required. No need to prove yourself. And who cares if something never actually happened? It exists in your memory, it still affects some decisions you make, hence it exists.

 

[Pluto]

In Advaita philosophy, to count as real something has to be eternal, unmediated and shine by its own light. Only pure consciousness meets that criteria. Hence, no thing is considered real, including the world or our human bodies/minds/thoughts, and the goal of practitioners is to discover the timeless universal essence.

 

[noname223]

Cogito ergo sum.

 

[RenMei]

If you mean existence as a general concept then something exists, if it's remembered or even if someone is aware of said existence.

 

[dreamscape1111]

Existence or consciousness is the only reality.
Consciousness is the screen on which all the
pictures come and go. The screen is real, the
pictures are mere shadows on it.
~ Ramana Maharshi ~

 

[carmechanicer_keke]

We are just the perception of others and the impact we have in this world. If, hypothetically, there is someone no one knows about, that person will still, somehow, have an impact in this world. Like move a rock or a stick, leave footprints in the mud, anything! That's proof that they exist. For objects, it's more difficult, but someone will always be aware that the object exists: the creator of that object. Therefore, by someone perceiving it, the object exists for someone. If the creator dies and no one knows about that object, it ceases to exist, until someone knows about it again. So i think objects and people don't exist, in general. They exist for certain beings that perceive them.

 

[Forever Sleep]

Personally, I believe every living being on this planet could be killed and something physical will still remain.

I don't believe that planets that are said to be devoid of life only exist because we discovered them.

I just think we're the most egotistical arrogant beings there have ever been on this planet. The dinosaurs supposedly lived for 165 million years here compared to our 7 million. Why do we even believe that the dinosaurs lived here that long if humans weren't physically present to witness it? Of course- some people don't believe that I suppose.

I don't know- I've just never been able to get my head round what I see as a MASSIVE dellusion of grandeure.

That all said though- HOW we experience our lives could well be utterly unique to all of us. Different species likely have certain traits in common due to their physical make up. So- a pebble is going to look tiny to me but enormous to an ant- we're both right. The pebble still exists though- however a living being perceives it...

Unless of course this is ALL some kind of simulation- like in the film 'The Matrix'. In which case- either nothing is real, or what we are living isn't. Personally, I doubt that- but, who knows?

 

[SexyIncél]

There's no notion of proof except in math, because it deals with purely mental objects. And even then, we're not entirely sure mathematical proofs are valid, except maybe in the simplest cases

There's a weaker notion of demonstrating something exists. Science uses this notion. For this reason, science is necessarily fallible. If you're a realist (as opposed to say an idealist), the existence of something doesn't depend on others' perceptions — in fact, reality is basically what's true regardless of your beliefs. ("C'mon, be realistic!")

Nevertheless, scientific investigators do run around trying to convince each other. Imre Lakatos analyzed how scientific research programs worked. (btw he also worked on the fallibility of math proofs)

Humans can be made to rigidly reject worthwhile evidence and believe falsehoods. Therefore they're not great guides on what exists. What's more helpful is a subset of sentience able & willing to investigate in a (self-)critical & reasoning way

 

[aGoodDayToDie]

Proof is hard. As said already, the only thing we can know as absolutely true is that we're conscious. As best as we know, much of what we experience is somewhat of an illusion, at best. We know that what we see isn't what's really there. We're mostly empty space, when we touch something we're interpreting things very differently to the reality. We can however, make helpful guesses based on how experiences correlate. We are able to make useful predictions based on experiences. There is a useful continuity to what our experiences tell us about the nature of existence. But none of it proves what we cannot actually know: things that are unknowable: what lies behind our experiences. The fundamental nature of reality. As already mentioned, everything could be a simulation. Or we could be brains in a jar. There's just no way to know.

 

[angel31]

U cant prove shit... The only thing u can prove is ur own existance... cogito ergo sum

 

[Homo erectus]

Proof is for convincing other people. Naturally that depends on the perception of others. For oneself there is no need for proof. Belief is good enough, or whatever makes one comfortable.

 

[im already reading]

Do you think proof of existence of something is dependent on other sentient perceptions of that thing? Curious to see thoughts on this :)

throw something at it, throw it at something, throw someone at it, take a photo, take a video with other people to verify, throw it at other people

 

[Professor K]

if the vast majority of the world can see it with their bare eyes (and not a random pic on the internet) then it undoubtedly exists in the eyes of humanity, there you go.

 

[SovietSuicide]

'Proof' was born out of analytic philosophy and developing legal & scientific arguments.

Some guy once said "I think therefor I am" or some bullshit and then real thinkers were like "lol that's retarded" and then 200 years of industrial capitalism happened and now the analytical model is the only one that's taught in schools.