In a philosophical spin here.....

[nuova1]

I think this statement can be solved but I have not met anyone at all who agrees with me. The philosophical statement in question is 'Nothing unreal exists'........Can we discuss this please, I have pages and pages of notes and very close to the answer but also very close to brain bursting point.

[incitatus]

pino- i didnt jump on you I disagreed with you. If you find this unpleasant then i do suggest you may have an unhappy time. Accurate timekeeping- harrison clocks were accurate to a few seconds a day. this is pitiful. and quite inadequate to any but the simplest needs. all common modern timepeices are run on the principles of quartz vibration- an effect only explicable in the quantum world- which is alien to newtonian physics. Rocketry beyond the light the blue touchpaper jobs relies on accurate feedback, i.e. electronics, which relies on quantum mechanics. which cannot be explained by newtonian physics. The world of the unreal is the world you live in. You probably accept that radioactivity exists but were you aware that it works by a particle being in two places at the same time? or alternatively, ceasing to be real, travelling a small distance as an unreal thing then reappearing as a real thing? The universe is alive with virtual particles, pairs of notional particles that have no existence but can be called into reality if sufficient local potential is placed across a vacuum......what price reality?

[smudge]

On the contrary nuova1, take a look under Body & Soul, on the topic of 'Down syndrome'. You see, I'm not alone! NicolaJane got it in one! Have a happy life - we do!

[smudge]

Exactly coggles, SOAPBOX came to my mind too - sad!

[smudge]

incitatus, have you just landed or what?

[smudge]

incititas, have you just landed or what?

[smudge]

Whoops, I was right the first time - must watch 'me' grammar!

[nuova1]

Ah....but there again...what is Time?

[nuova1]

Ooooh Smudge.....you do come across as awfully sexy when you persist with your rebuttals.....

[smudge]

Thank you for the compliment nuova1, my Husband thinks so too! I just hope you're not female - meow!

[geofbob]

Sorry for this late entry, but I was on holiday until 21 Nov and have only just seen the question. The statement only needs proof if reality and existence are assumed to be different states of being. (Clearly the statements "Nothing unreal is real" or "Nothing non-existent exists" do NOT need proof, as they are tautological.) However, if you define "real" and "exists" so that they are not synonomous, I suspect that you would not think the issue worth pursuing. Eg suppose "real" is defined as only applying to objects, persons etc capable of being detected by physical methods; but "exists" as including both those real objects and abstract concepts, fictional persons etc. It would then be more or less self-evident that your original statment is untrue, as many "unreal" things (eg beauty, Oliver Twist) would "exist". However, if you exchanged the above definitions, so that "real" had the wider definition, and "exists" the narrower, then just as self-evidently your statment would be true, as nothing excluded from the wider class of "real" could be within the narrower class of "exists". However, as I said earlier, I suspect that you do not see any difference between "real" and "exists", in which case seeking a proof of the statement "Nothing unreal exists" is like seeking a proof of the statement "No number other than 2 is 2".

[IggyB]

what an interesting discussion, not the topic exactly, but rather the differing ways people deal with the answer, obviously there are two answers the short answer advocated by pinotage or the long answer advocated by treaclefight, but isn't it fun that each camp can not / will not accept the other... is this the old fight between the realist and the relativists? both camps have there benefits to society, but instead of sticking to the subject, discussing the problem or working together in any way shape or form the discussion very quickly turns to attacking each other for their beliefs and thoughts. So i guess treaclefight probably was right about the cave man thing, the philosophers group and the pactical groups of cavemen probably got so annoyed with each other that they had to have a war, and for that war they needed spears, but for those spears they needed sharp points, but for those points they needed tools, but for those tools they need designers etc etc until we have rubbish trains and pop idol contests... so lets all hear it for philosophy and the anger it provokes in most of us ... HURRAY!