George Ellis - What Things Really Exist?

When you ask what things really exist, and you think deeply about this probe to apprehend what is out there, you see the whole world anew. What are the most general categories to understand the world? It’s such a simple question; how can it inspire such profound insights?

George F. R. Ellis is the Emeritus Distinguished Professor of Complex Systems in the Department of Mathematics and Applied Mathematics at the University of Cape Town in South Africa.

Closer to Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[TheTroofSayer]

In my effort to contextualize this conversation, I itemized the categories (beginning with 4 of them, ending with 6 in total). Others might also find this list helpful:

0:34 firstly the world of particles and forces
1:18 the world of human intentions and thoughts
2:46 The class of physical possibilities
4:36 Mathematics
7:55 The world of moral reality
8:34 Meta world

[TheMusicWiz]

Every moment with George Ellis is a moment of clarity

[TheRonBerg]

In little less than 10 mins this guy has completely blown my mind with an unGodly amount of notions and ideas.

[OfficialGOD]

Beautiful, infinite discoveries, all mathematically true and beyond this temporal reality, wild.

[sawilliams]

I always grab my glasses whenever these videos start!

[showponyexpressify]

Finally, someone talking 99% sense on this channel.... Respect.

[G-zj]

This guy is cool, like what he's got to say. Balanced and well presented

[PLASKETT]

Excellent series this Closer to Truth.
My warm gratitude goes to Lawrence Kuhn!

[thee_ms_enthusiast]

The understanding of George is so realistic and simple. Deep but so simply put. 🔥

[haimbenavraham]

That nine and half minutes, passed at velocity c. Astounding capsule of thought.

[tedgrant]

I keep thinking I am very bad and deserve eternal punishment.
But actually, I am amazing. I can walk and talk and play the piano !
I do the cooking, cleaning, shopping and washing up. Brilliant.

[frankielemonjello]

One may as well ask, 'what is existence?'
But here we are.

[TheTroofSayer]

All these categories that George Ellis provides, I believe, can be subsumed under one umbrella category, *knowing how to be* (Dasein?). Martin Heidegger's Dasein is one possible expression of the concept, though his anthropocentric emphasis expresses it in the context of the human condition and culture. But the thing is, I think that this concept of *knowing how to be* (and the generalized form of Heidegger's Dasein) extends all the way to matter, physics, the quantum void, and the subatomic particles whose properties depend on the contexts in which they find themselves.

Within the domain of quantum mechanics, particles pop into and out of existence, within the possibility space of the quantum void (Ellis' third category), to manifest Ellis' first category, the world of particles and forces.

Ellis' reference to possibility space is particularly important not just for humans and other living organisms, but also for matter and the quantum void. *Knowing how to be* must surely be integral to making real that which is possible.

The world of human intentions and thoughts (Ellis' second category) relates to human culture and again, culture is the source of human *knowing how to be* (Dasein, principally as the context Heidegger intended).

*Knowing how to be* relates to semiotic/biosemiotic theory (CS Peirce and J von Uexküll) with meaning and association as the fundamentals that apply to every form of life.

*Knowing how to be* is the top-down direction of causation that engages with the bottom-up. The bottom-up constrains what the top-down can command. Semiotic theory is the top-down that is difficult to quantify and verify within the narrative of physicalism and bottom-up causation. Despite this difficulty, however, semiotic theory, as the science of *knowing how to be*, deserves a seat at the table.

The world of moral reality can be best understood in the context of culture. That which is moral is that which makes life worth living, and this relates to culture. But animals also show moral predispositions. Consider, for example, mothers of different species raising their young. Witness the alpha male of a troop of silverback gorillas as he gently guides his troop of nervous ladies and children across a highway (as per a video clip I saw). There's the innocent helplessness of the young, of many species, that would never survive without the caring interventions of their parents feeding them and protecting them. Prides of lions have their moral obligations within the pride, in hunting, sharing and protecting. Yes, questions of morality do indeed seem to extend also to the animal kingdom... though these would be invisible to those physicalists who dismiss animal behavior as "instinct".

Mathematics is interesting, not sure how to frame it in the context of *knowing how to be* . On the one hand, maybe it's an expression of the symmetries that precipitate from the quantum void. On the other hand, maybe mathematics is the *meaning* that humans attribute to the numbers and relations that have no meaning when there is no-one around to observe and count them.

The bottom line, I suggest, is that Ellis' categories overlap and the universal that provides the umbrella category under which all of them can be embraced is the *knowing how to be*. For those who believe in God, yes, you have the option to express it in those terms, if you want, but that's not the direction I would take it.

I wonder if this *knowing how to be* is the sixth meta category that Ellis is describing.

[RussellJones]

I think that morals fall in the same category as his jumbo jet example - a concept shared across a group of people. While some morals concepts are more or less global, others are wildly different and change over time as societies change.

[waldwassermann]

Words exist because of meaning. Once you've gotten the meaning, you can forget the words. Where can I find a man who has forgotten words so I can talk with him?”
― Zhuangzi

[chrisbennett]

the last statment by george ellis was very very deep

[SRAVALM]

Acknowledgement to George Ellis, and thank you CTT.
The Ancient Egyptians, Indians, Greeks, and from Pythagoras to Plato, Plotinus, Proclus, Dionysius, Eriugena, Eckhart, whom i am currently studying, have acknowledged these Metaphysical Truths. And emphasis must be due given for Why it has taken so long, concerning our day and age, to acknowledge too these Prinicples that our Ancestors have revealed long ago, I can only reason by saying an infiltration has occur in the modern 'pseudo science' aka the cult of atomism and the good quality concerning this negative manipulation acts in itself and filter so in distinguishing who is Truly worthy of the appellation 'Philosopher' and to that whom is a sophists(fake) to the modern concensus rather than 'Seeker of Truth'.
Ultimately: science, mysticism, feild theory, metaphysics, physics, theology are all talking about the the same things, differing only in mode and approach.

Sophists here who comment like Matt Woodling, kos mos, gruawolfe are not doing science although they claim to; while they disregard God, Metaphysics, Philosophy, The Sciptures, and are absolutely not whom they claim to be, are not genuine rather are band wagon jumpers.

[tedgrant]

The things that really exist are waves in the space-time continuum.
"Particle physics" is actually about waves !

[simonhibbs]

I see mathematics and physical 'laws' quite differently. To me these are descriptions and mathematics is simply a language. It doesn't define anything as real any more than any language does, it simply describes things. Whether or not the description is meaningful or useful works in exactly the same way as it does with any language. The statement "2 + 2 = 5" is intelligible, meaningful and accurate or inaccurate in exactly the same ways as the statement "the present king of France has a beard". Both descriptions follow the correct form linguistically but don't correspond to real objects or real relationships. There is a space of possible expressions in english that obey the grammar of English and describe reality, or possibilities in reality and there is a space of expressions in mathematics that are consistent with the rules of mathematics and describe real or possible relationships. That's all that the supposed world of platonic ideal is, it's a theoretical space of consistent expressions, but by itself it has no reality. A language simply describes real things and real relationships, or possible things and possible relationships, or it doesn't. Mathematics works the same way. We can't meaningfully talk about it being real in itself, we can only talk about it being consistent with it's own rules as a descriptive language, and whether or not it corresponding to real things or possible things and possible relationships in the real world. Such expressions can't define reality, they can only be consistent with it. The same goes for physical laws, as linguistic expressions.

[SandipChitale]

I think the intention of the question was - what fundamentally exists. Very truncated analysis. Similar to answers in the emergence video. It looks like every possible thing I can think of making using Legos or I can make fundamentaly exist. If that is the case, then it can be said that every possible physics allowed combination of space, time forces, fields, and particles exists and thus becomes trivially meaningless.