Rational Existence is a belief system which asserts human existence is nearly entirely rational, not physical. Words and ideas are the stock and trade of humanity, and certain ideas are inextricable from our existence. Here I will mention the idea of value.

If any relationship, aspect or attribute that exists in the universe is of more value, use, or worth to humanity than another then some sort of rational order, that of value, exists as physical reality exists. If such a rational order does not exist then nothing any of us says or does is of any worth whatever.

If a tree falls in the woods and there is nothing in the universe that knows what a tree is then who cares? If no one knows what a box is then who cares about Schrodinger’s cat?

So here we have the assertion: Humanity is primarily rational, not physical. Beings exist primarily as value to other beings. Without such value we are of no matter.

Existence is not physical, though it has a physical dimension. Without the rational there is no matter, worth, value or use for existence.

Of course we could posit some supreme being that rationally created everything and we are in the process of realizing such an immutable order. In that case, the order that exists, whether fully discovered or not, pre-exists our rational discovery of that immutable order.

We could call that immutable order “Pre-Existence”.

S:   “So here we have the assertion: Humanity is primarily rational, not physical. Any beings that exist can only exist as value to other beings. Without such value they are of no matter.”

Is there a difference between a being existing, and a being existing of value to other beings?

Kent:  Cool question. I see it as simple in essence but difficult to answer because of language conventions. I could do so in a number of different ways, but first I will try the answer of essence rather than language conventions, and see how it goes.

Humans are primarily rational but have a physical presence. So the physical presence is an existence, but not the primary existence. Human existence is nearly entirely rational. That is to say the sum total of any human’s existence has very little to do with the physicality of existence. In the above we have examined one important aspect of rational existence and that is usefulness, value and worth.

So, if you will, let me answer this cool question by saying the comparison of that being or human’s physical existence with the same being’s usefulness, value or worth to other humans is the difference between the existence of an unnamed, unknown, and unexamined object with, say, a hammer.

S:   So did you misspeak when you said, “Any beings that exist can only exist as value to other beings.”

Kent:  Yes. I did. Let’s take out the word “can” and it is still accurate. But thank you for pointing out my error. Better stated that sentence should be something like:  “Beings exist primarily as value to other beings. Without such value they are of no matter.”

S:   Can a being exist and have value to itself?

Kent:  We all have value to ourselves.

S:  So then what’s the difference between value to self and value to others?

Kent:  It depends on context. I am not here to define value.

S:   You use the word value in 2 of the 3 sentences in your assertion.

Kent:  (quoting myself) “Here I will mention the idea of value.  If any relationship, aspect or attribute that exists in the universe is of more value, use, or worth to humanity than another then some sort of rational force that of value, exists. If such a rational force does not exist then nothing any of us says or does is of any worth whatever.”

You: “So then what’s the difference between value to self and value to others?”

What is the relationship of your question to my assertion? I use other words as well. Which ones do I need to define for you?

S:  If you scroll up to my first post, I quote you, starting with the phrase “So here we have the assertion:” Was that not actually your main assertion, and would you rather talk about “a rational order that exists”?

Kent:  Either, or both.

S:   Then when you use the word value in your assertion, you ARE here to define exactly what you mean.

“Beings exist primarily as value to other beings. Without such value they are of no matter.”

Why is value to others important for existence whilst value to themselves is “of no matter”?

Kent:  My value to myself, if differentiated and separated from every other value, is of no value to anyone else. My value to me is separated  by your conditional view. But value overall is value to the existence of order in the universe. It only exists if it is perceived, used, valued, and to some extent understood.

S:   “value overall is value to the existence of order in the universe.”

Can you expound on that, please? I don’t know what “value overall” means, nor how it might be/add value to the existence of order in the universe.

K:  If any relationship, aspect or attribute that exists in the universe is of more value, use, or worth to humanity than another then some sort of rational order, that of value, exists.

If the issue of “value” worth, usefulness and cost is the problem, which I believe it is at this point, then we should move on to another universal idea. I began with value because I believe we all can readily admit that the idea of value is universal to the human condition; that we cannot exist as we exist without the idea.

The point, however, is that ideas like value are part and parcel to our existence. There can be no human condition without the order we perceive, universally, as we perceive the idea of value.

Kent:  OIC, you are seeking clarification as “value to other beings”. To me that is a non-issue. If value exists as a concept I made my point. Whether one being in the universe conceptualizes such a thing as value or the entire aggregate of beings, the concept exists.  I will correct the OP as only two people have commented so far.

So now it reads:   “Beings exist primarily as value to other beings. Without such value they are of no matter.”

We are of value to ourselves but that is not primary. Just as we exist as unidentified matter, that is not our primary existence.

S:   Can you show that something is of more value/use/worth to humanity than something else? How does that tie in to value of people to other people as opposed to value to self? And why would this mean a rational order of value exists?

Kent:  You can deny any idea. To show the universal application of value you only need to show an American dollar. We all know value.

The point that value exists is the point of Rational Existence. If you deny the existence of value, and every other human concept, well, fine. But that is tantamount to denying all order in the universe. If you deny value how can you affirm gravity? That the earth is round?

Our reality is rational. We know that because we communicate our reality with words.

S:   I don’t deny the existence of value. Nor the American dollar. Nor Mother’s Day, the speed limit or the five Burroughs of New York City. But all those things are imaginary, and exist in the collective mind, because we have all agreed on what that green piece of paper represents, or when we will celebrate motherhood, or how fast you are legally allowed to travel, or where the line is where one Burrough ends and another begins. Things that occur only in the minds of people are not demonstrative of an external order.

Kent: I said: “If any relationship, aspect or attribute that exists in the universe is of more value, use, or worth to humanity than another then some sort of rational force, that of value, exists.”

I should have said “order”. But I did say “rational force” which should be a tip-off.

S:   I’m sorry that I can only respond to what you actually say, and not what you meant to say. Do you believe there is a “value force” at work in the universe?

Kent:  I believe there is value. I never said value was a force. I did say Rational Force. Although that is accurate it seems more accurate to say Rational Order. The order in the universe is often seen as and called a force.

Kent:  Forgive me again. Please view value as an existent universal order, not a force.

S:   What is an existential universal order?  Can you give another example of one?

Kent:  In this case we are talking about value, but you can talk about gravity or other laws of physics or physiological processes such as emotions… All of these things exist only in the minds of people, communicated in words.

“If any relationship, aspect or attribute that exists in the universe is of more value, use, or worth to humanity than another then some sort of rational order, that of value, exists. If such a rational order does not exist then nothing any of us says or does is of any worth whatever.”

S:  Gravity and the laws of physics are describing things that exist separate from people. The things they describe existed long before people did. And therefore long before anything that might be of more value, use or worth to humanity.  And physiological processes of people exist anywhere but the mind, namely the body.

If you want to talk about the processes of the mind, and the way we value these things as humans, it seems to add credence to the idea that these things only exist inside the mind of humans, and that there is no sort of rational order that exists separate to us.

Kent:  How do you know those things “exist separate from people”? If no one knows what gravity is, who cares what gravity is? If no one knows what value is, who cares what value is?

Why do you differentiate between one concept, gravity, and another concept, value?  Did value exist before people did?

S:   Gravity existed before people did, so it must exist separate from people.

Things exist independent from how much people care or value them. Things exist that people do not value at all.

I don’t know that value exists at all, outside of a mind.

Kent:  But somehow you know that gravity exists outside the mind? Is that your assertion?

S:   I’m not sure what you mean. Our understanding of gravity exists in our mind, but the thing we’re understanding is separate to our mind. That we value things exists only in our mind as far as I know. Same with the fact that I desire things, love things, loathe things and am intrigued by things. As far as I can tell, those “feelings” exist only within my mind, and not as some measurable things that have existed before humanity.

Kent:   If I understand you, the ideas that only exist in the mind, things like value, are unverifiable as having matter. However trees, falling, gravity, force, etc., exist.

I don’t know why I am not notified of your responses so I will stop here and check in later to see if you have responded.

S:   If something exists in the mind, then how can there be anything to external about it?

Kent:  To use my words that explain, to my ability, your objection “the ideas that exist in the mind, things like value, are unverifiable as having matter”. That is not the same as “something [which] exists in the mind”

For example the things we write here have existence even if it is just in electronic form. As does ink on paper. So there is very good evidence of the existence of ideas such as value.

S:   How is the fact that other things which exist, can represent something in our minds, and in fact, can allow our two minds to exchange ideas, good evidence that anything exists? Again, doesn’t calling “value” an “idea”, mean it only exists in our minds, rather than as something external?

Kent:  Absolutely? No. Existence is dependent so far as humans are concerned. Perhaps there is an Absolute Existence which we can somehow prove, I don’t know.

S:   Okay. Has your assertion changed since we started talking? Would you mind restating it here, please?

Kent:  Rational Existence is a belief system … [I quote the OP]

S:   I can read the OP just fine. And we’ve addressed a lot of it. A single sentence that states your belief is what I am after.

Kent:  Give me an example. Give a single sentence that states your belief and I will follow suit.

S:   What belief would you like me to summarise?

Kent:  That is what you are asking me to do. What belief system are you asking me to summarize?

Rational existence: That the pre-existent order that humans note and describe and model and otherwise use exists as surely as anything else exists.

S:   I don’t know. That’s the point. I’ve addressed things you’ve said, and you have edited your posts. It’s not that humans only have value to other humans. It’s not that value exists as an absolute. Why did you post here? What is it you believe?

Kent:  I only took out the word “absolute”. Value exists as surely as gravity.

S:   Would it exist without beings to value things?

Kent:  Without beings there is nothing to know if anything exists.

S:   Right. So could you sum up your claim as “people value things”?

Kent:  Existence is not physical. The forces of order which are sought, described, known and modeled by humans exist as independently of humans as the physical world. Existence is rational.

S:   Things that exist do not physically exist?

Kent:  Only tangentially. Without the rational there is no knowledge of physical existence. Physical existence is dependent on rational existence.    Does there have to be knowledge of physical existence for there to be physical existence? To answer that question one needs knowledge of physical existence. Can the word CAT exist if there are no cats?

S:   To answer the question, one does need knowledge of physical existence. We have knowledge of physical existence. Please answer the question. Does there have to be knowledge of physical existence for there to be physical existence.

Kent:  I do not know the answer. I cannot exist without knowledge and I cannot know that for which I have no knowledge. I don’t believe anyone else can either.

Did the order and knowledge exist before I knew it? That is the question.

S:   Did it exist for your parents before you were born? Did it exist when you were conceived, when you existed, but had no knowledge? Did it exist when you were born? Etc

Kent:  What, precisely, are you calling “it”?

S:   “The order and knowledge”. And did it exist during your life time, before any number of people were born, who are younger than you?

Kent: Those are two different things. I can intuit that that knowledge existed based on writings and historical documents.

Order, on the other hand, is the issue. Rational Existence means that the Order has existed as surely as the physical world existed. The Order pre-exists knowledge of the Order just as the physical world existed before we had knowledge of the physical world.

S:   So were you mistaken when you said “Existence is not physical”?

Kent:  The essential qualities of existence are not physical. They are rational. There is a physical existence but human existence is nearly entirely rational.

S:   Let’s list those essential qualities of existence. What are they?

Kent:  httpS: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence

S:   So the ability to interact with physical and mental reality? Why do you believe they are rational qualities rather than physical ones?

Kent:  You say I believe that the ability to interact with physical and mental reality is a rational and not physical quality.

S: Don’t you?  A hammer has a physical existence. Does a hammer interact physically and mentally?

Kent: Perhaps I don’t understand your question.

S:   I asked for what you believed were the essential qualities of existence. Rather than answer the question, you sent me a link. If you’re not happy with what comes from that, perhaps you should answer my questions personally, regarding what you believe, rather than send me to links.

I don’t say anything, other than I’m trying to clarify what you believe.

Kent:  Who isn’t happy? You asked the essential qualities of existence. I believe that is a question you may have considered yourself, but if not, the Wiki article is a good start.

If you would like to know, again, what Rational Existence holds as a basic tenant about existence it is, again, that without knowledge of existence there can be no quality, aspects, attributes, nothing at all. If there is existence at all without the knowledge of existence, well, no one can know it.

S:  “You say I believe that the ability to interact with physical and mental reality is a rational and not physical quality.

Don’t you. “

I didn’t say this. You said it. I was repeating you.

“A hammer has a physical existence. Does a hammer interact physically and mentally?”

A hammer interacts with physical reality. Is this quality physical or rational?

Kent:  Your knowledge that the hammer interacts with physical reality is rational. Without that knowledge, well, I don’t know.

S:   The knowledge of the interaction may be rational, but the actual interaction, is that physical or rational?

Kent:  How can one answer a question about knowledge under the condition that there be no knowledge? If you don’t know something do you know it?

S:   Where did I say that there can be no knowledge? You must obviously use your knowledge to answer the question. Could you answer it please?

Kent:  Without my knowledge I cannot answer any question. With my knowledge then yes there is existence. Human existence is dependent on a pre-existent order of which humans have some knowledge. Without that knowledge humans have the same existence as an unnamed lump of matter we cannot call a “hammer” since no one has knowledge of such a thing.

S:   Obviously without knowledge you could not answer questions. Likewise I could not ask them.

Is the existence of the hammer; the way it interacts with physical reality; is that physical or rational?

Kent:  The existence is rational because without the rational there is no existence. There is a physical aspect, but our world is almost entirely made up of words, names, models and other rational constructs.

S:   And what makes the way the hammer interacts with physical reality, rational rather than physical?

Kent:  Words, names, models and other rational constructs.

S:   They don’t sound like things that have anything to do with the way a hammer interacts with physical reality.

Kent:  How do you know? Your knowledge of the hammer is your reality. No one knows the reality of a hammer. We know the hammer’s relationships, aspects and attributes as they apply to us.

Our knowledge is our reality, not the hammer’s.

S:   I know that words and names are human inventions; exist only in our minds; and therefore have nothing to do with how the hammer interacts with physical reality. I’m not exactly sure what you mean by models or rational constructs, but I suspect they are the same, and therefore equally irrelevant.

“Our knowledge is our reality, not the hammer’s.”

You have hit the nail right on the head (appropriately enough). You seem to be wrapped up with our knowledge of the hammer, instead of focusing on the hammer itself. You list a bunch on rational things which occur in a human mind, and then assert that those things in our minds are what makes up the important attributes of the hammer, rather than the physical attributes of the hammer, when, say, there is no human mind thinking about it.

Kent: How does one focus on the hammer itself? All we can do is model intellectually our experience of the hammer.

S:  Does the hammer itself have “words” or “names”? Does the hammer itself “model” or “other rational construct”?

Kent:  My best guess is no. I would guess the hammer does not have an intellect or rational existence. But feel free to ask the hammer.

S:   So, if the hammer interacts with physical reality, AND it doesn’t have any of the hallmarks of rational existence, is the hammers existence physical?

Kent:  If no one knows existence or physical or hammer then who cares? If the hammer has a physical existence it is nameless, useless, without any attributes or relationships.

S:   Again, I didn’t claim that nobody knows existence or physical or hammer. Please stop putting words in my mouth. Please read what I said; go back up a few posts if need be; and let me know if the hammers existence is physical and not rational.

Kent:  To humans, all existence is rational. I cannot answer for hammers.  I do not know how hammers experience existences. Humans, however, can know the relationships, aspects and attributes of the existence of hammers through rational existence. I know of no other way to communicate or understand or deal with any data, information or knowledge of the existence of hammers.

S: I think we both understand that hammers aren’t sentient, and this don’t experience existence. And yet hammers exist. And so, does that mean that the hammers existence is physical rather than rational?

We haven’t got to the human side of interaction with hammers yet. That will be after you give a straight answer to this question.

Kent: If the knowledge of existence is only possible through a human’s knowledge then without humans there is no existence. So, no, unless there is some other knowledge somewhere that validates the existence of hammers, then without human knowledge hammers do not have existence. With human knowledge they have Rational Existence.

S:   Why do you believe that there is no existence without humans, if the knowledge of existence is only possible through a human’s knowledge?

Kent:  Why do you believe there is existence if no beings in the universe know of existence? If Joe does not know he has a million dollars in the bank, and the bank has no record of Joe or his money, does Joe have a million dollars?

S:  Asking me the opposite question is not an answer to the one I asked. Please answer my question.

Kent:  Why do I believe it? Rational existence.

S:   If it could be demonstrated to your satisfaction, that things can exist without humans, would you change your view, that knowledge of existence is required for existence?

Kent:  Of course. If life were shown to be different from what it is I would change my view of life as well. If yes were no I would change too. I can handle conditional statements.

Also, I don’t believe things cannot “exist without humans”. I am attempting to show you that essential qualities of existence are rational, not physical. I believe those essential qualities and physical reality existed before and will exist after humanity.

S:   5 posts up you said “If the knowledge of existence is only possible through a human’s knowledge then without humans there is no existence.” I was asking about the physical existence of a hammer, and you clearly stated “without human knowledge hammers do not have existence.”

Kent:  The statement begins with the conditional “If”. If the knowledge of existence is ONLY possible…. Unless there is some other knowledge somewhere that validates the existence of hammers”

S:   Your assertion is that things can’t physically exist unless someone knows they exist.

Kent:  Things cannot exist unless a rational framework exists. So far as human thinking goes these days, most humans believe only humans are capable of such a rational framework. Rational Existence makes no such claim. Order pre-exists anything ordered. If you believe only humans are capable of making order then without humans there is no order.

S:   “Things cannot exist unless a rational framework exists.”

What do you mean by a rational framework? The 4 forces at work in the universe that describe how everything works … is that a rational framework?

Kent:  All the words you used to refer to the ideas that help you understand your surroundings are part of a rational framework. Whether or not the framework in our minds accurately reflects our surroundings we are still building a rational framework.

Whether or not the 4 forces at work are real, or a small part of what is real, or completely false they are still a rational framework.

S:   So the construct in my mind, built on my senses of the outside world, is a rational framework. But the outside world itself is also a rational framework?

Kent:  Correct. Our rational framework is a weak, necessarily inaccurate and necessarily incomplete model of reality.

S:   Okay. So what makes reality a rational framework? It is obviously very different to a mental construct. What is the common denominator?

Kent:  Because the only way to know reality is as a rational framework. It is at least partially such a framework, however we will never know reality.

S:  Sorry, what’s the common denominator?

Kent:  The only way we know reality is as a model, a rational construct.

S:   Yes. Our understanding of reality is a rational construct. What makes reality a rational construct?

Kent:  Reality is at least partially a rational construct because that is all we know about reality.

S:  What do we know about reality that illustrates it’s at least partially a rational construct?

Kent:  I am talking about what humanity collectively communicates and collectively knows about the reality. Earlier you mentioned “The 4 forces at work in the universe that describe how everything works.” Your explanation is a rational construct. We know this because you use representational figures, letters and words, to communicate the rational construct.

S:  I understand that. I am talking about the reality itself. Why do you believe reality is a rational construct, like the model in our minds is a rational construct?

Kent:  I keep saying it is at least partially a rational construct because all we know about reality is a rational construct.

I personally believe, without any sort of proof whatever, that reality is infinitely beyond the highest potential of human comprehension for all eternity. But so far all I know are my conceptual models.

S:   You do keep saying that reality is a rational construct because all we know about reality is a rational construct. Does that seem circular to you?

Kent:  What are the other possibilities? You think there may be a physical particle or particles that define and order the models we make, like a value particle? Your position, OTOH is the world is physical because we can measure the physical. You fail to take into account that measuring is not physical. So how do we know the world is physical? Because we can measure?

S:   My body is physical because at one point it didn’t exist, it has grown into what it is now, and sometime in the future it will cease to exist. Reality is physical because I interact with it.

Kent:  How do you know any of the things you wrote? I was going to list them, but everything you said was a rational construct.

S:   Words are a rational construct. But by necessity, they must refer to something external to me. And the way we interact with things external to us, is called physical reality.

Kent:  Is a metaphor part of physical reality?

S:   A metaphor only exists in a mind, yes?

Kent:  A metaphor, value, all sorts of order have existence for the same reasons you say the hammer has existence.  You say words, by necessity, refer to something external. Then you ask if a metaphor only exists in the mind. Which of the two assertions most accurately expresses your position?

S:  A metaphor talks about physical things to actually refer to other physical things. The metaphor exists in the mind, and refers to external things. “Mapping the human genome” for example, refers to the technical work done by Doctors and scientists in the manner of old world explorers. A map is an external thing, as is the human genome. But the metaphor; in fact language in it’s entirety; exists only in the human mind.

A metaphor doesn’t exist without a mind. Nor does language. Nor does value.

I do think Order does exist. The 4 universal forces, being constant and universal, will result in order. But that is part of the physical, and not a separate thing.

Kent: So in your opinion, it seems, there is a difference in kinds of existence. That a metaphor “exists only in the human mind”.  But the hammer has a different sort of existence. But what about the word “hammer”? Does that exist only in the mind? If so, how does the existence of hammer differ from the idea of hammer named “hammer”?

S:   Yes, there is a difference between things that physically exist, and things that only exist in the construct of the mind. Similarly there is a difference between our interactions with the world and our dreams.

The word hammer exists only in our mind. There can be real world representations of it, but it is a mental construct. People who speak a different language will have a different mental construct that will represent the real world object that we can all recognize.

Kent:  I agree there is a difference between things with exist physically and things that exist in the mind. Humans exist in the mind primarily, and existence only exists in the mind. Dreams exist in the mind, and hammers exist in dreams.

If you have a division to make between kinds of existence I believe first you need to make a definition of existence and show that such a definition exists.

As it is existence as you have delineated it, does not exist, but a hammer with no name, no one to recognize it or use it, exists.

S:   Are you saying humans exist in their own mind primarily, or in other people’s minds?

Hammers don’t exist in dreams. A representation of a hammer in a dream is just that. Hammers only exist physically.

Kent:  What is the difference between how a hammer exists in a dream and how a hammer exists in the mind? How is the “representation of a hammer” different in a dream than it is right now, you talking about a hammer? What physical hammer are you talking about? Is there an ideal hammer, a generic or universal hammer somewhere we are talking about that is not a “representation”?

How does one know “hammers only exists physically” when there is no one to know any existence?

Your view leaves many more questions than answers, at least in my mind. It seems dogmatic “hammers exist” and no explanation.

S:   I don’t think there is much of a difference between a “hammer” in my mind and a “hammer” in my dreams, because my dreams occur in my mind. But you have already agreed that there is a difference between something that exists physically and something that exists in my mind. So it seems you know the difference between a hammer that physically exists and me dreaming or thinking of a hammer.

Kent:  Yes, and excuse the pun, but the difference is immaterial. It means nothing. The important part, the very existence of any and all hammers is the idea of hammer. The part that is not physical is the important part.

S:   If the difference between a “hammer” in the mind, and a physical hammer is immaterial, how can there be an “important” part?

Kent:  You: “How can there be an ‘important’ part? Because of value. That is why I chose that idea for the OP example. If anything is more important than anything else, then there is value intrinsic to the order that existed long before there were any humans to realize there was this order.

The difference is not material, not physical. The difference is important. The difference is part of the human world which we discovered in accord with all the order that existed long before we discovered the order.  We cannot exist as humans without the idea of value, without a hammer being more important than a nameless useless piece of matter that no one knows exists.

S:   You said the difference was immaterial. You said it meant nothing. Then you said the difference was important. It’s one or the other.