That's not 'like' saying that whatever isn't quantified doesn't exist as existence can be known by humans, it IS saying that. I realize it's paradoxical and nonsensical to quantify the ineffable or the non-material or the unquantifiable, but that's what humans need to do to convince themselves that those ineffable conditions somehow exist even if we can't identify them in themselves alone. We can't just claim that the self or the soul or art exists like a rock does or a body because we need a reference and the only references available are those that can be measured. That doesn't mean that the ineffable does not somehow exist but it means that we can't perceive or think of it as existing without quantifying it. We need to settle for proxy existence. If you insist that the soul or art can exist without being quantified then you must rely on your insistence alone which is the same as faith or belief or, maybe, ignorance. If you do that I'll say OK, it's your belief and like any belief it can't be proved or examined independently of you. Or, it can by proxy. Thus art. Thus God. Thus soul. Thus love. Thus faith, belief, etc. Not even the subjective can exist without proxy, without mind. It's a cunundrum, a paradox. I love paradox. That's where the truth hides, all curled up and snickering. wc
But isn't that like saying that if something cannot be quanitified, then it has no value and therefore doesn't exist.? What about the subjective?
