Well, I can't engage "Experience exists" because I don't treat "exists" as a predicate, as I stated earlier. What you seem to be asserting as straightforwardly true looks to me more like a malformed sentence. Yes, words and concepts arise in our language and are metaphysically constrained by reality. However, it seems to be quite a departure from this milquetoast linguistic fact to assume that natural language would, could, or even should map to the structure of reality—especially with respect to heavyweight "existence" claims—in any meaningful way.
I adopt ontological anti-realism and do not stray into "existence" claims because they simply raise too many methodological issues. The quotes here are important because I don't have an intuitive understanding of what people mean when they say "exists" in the first place.
You could rephrase "Experience exists" as "Humans experience" or "I experience," which is analogous to Cogito in Cogito, ergo sum but without the ergo sum. There's a subject and a predicate already, and "exists" adds nothing.
If you want to make substantive claims about what does or doesn't exist, your views are subject to relatively straightforward reductio ad absurdums. This is demonstrated pretty clearly in On What There Is.
> Why do you think "something rather than nothing" question doesn't make sense?
"Something" = quantifier, "nothing" = quantifier, existential "is" = quantifier. Again, I would insist on a predicate here.
I adopt ontological anti-realism and do not stray into "existence" claims because they simply raise too many methodological issues. The quotes here are important because I don't have an intuitive understanding of what people mean when they say "exists" in the first place.
You could rephrase "Experience exists" as "Humans experience" or "I experience," which is analogous to Cogito in Cogito, ergo sum but without the ergo sum. There's a subject and a predicate already, and "exists" adds nothing.
If you want to make substantive claims about what does or doesn't exist, your views are subject to relatively straightforward reductio ad absurdums. This is demonstrated pretty clearly in On What There Is.
> Why do you think "something rather than nothing" question doesn't make sense?
"Something" = quantifier, "nothing" = quantifier, existential "is" = quantifier. Again, I would insist on a predicate here.