Talk:The existence of physical objects

I think it's questionable whether this is properly an encyclopedia article.

Comments welcome.

True, since "physical" objects are generally defined as precisely those objects recognized by strict materialists, namely the ones we can detect. That does not leave a lot for discussion. Occam's Razor implies that the best theory is that they exist. Fairandbalanced 21:40, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

- I agree that as it stands this should not be an article. But I disagree with Fairandbalanced's dismissal of it (i, of course, I read the comment correctly; my apologies if I have not). I think the article is more about the nature of "existence" than of "physical objects," and I think it raises legitimate philosophical questions that do indeed belong in an encyclopedia -- but rather than as a separate article, it should be incoprorated into an article on [Ontology], and also contextualized (i.e. who has raised these questions and when, and how have other philosophers responded). Slrubenstein

What I'd like to see is a discussion of existence that covers the following questions

1. Do I exist? (yes/no/not provable?)

2. What am "I"? (a mind? a disembodied spirit? a thinking biological machine?

3. Does anything else exist?

4. Does any of the above really matter? should any conclusions I reach actually influence how I behave (ie whatever I conclude shouldn't I behave as if the outside world DOES exist)?

Exile 14:29, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How about merging this article into existence? That article is fairly small as things stand and could use expansion, and to my untrained eye most of the stuff on this page is general enough to fit there nicely. Bryan 22:56, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)