# The mathmatical definition of existence

Tags: definition, existence, mathmatical
 P: n/a Existence Any form "exists" if it has been created/assembled/ or if it is a part of something else that "exists." I exist because something that does not exist cannot question itself (separate logic from above).
P: 293
 Originally posted by Alexander So?
Wow...Alexander, everything becomes so clear after you post.

Mohaamad, this is the same concept of "I think, therefore I am" which is discussed in another thread, perhaps you would find that thread helpful and informative.

EDIT: As Mentat asked, if this is in fact what you mean, this idea of creation to exist conflicts with just about every current explanation of the universe, religious or scientific.
P: 3,715
 Originally posted by Mohaamad Existence Any form "exists" if it has been created/assembled/ or if it is a part of something else that "exists."
So you are saying that something had to be created, in order to exist?

P: 1,341
The mathmatical definition of existence

 Originally posted by Mohaamad Any form "exists" if it has been created/assembled or if it is a part of something else that "exists."
Emeritus
PF Gold
P: 5,532
The proof is pretty trivial.

Start by leaving the "creation" part out of the sentence.

 (edited by Tom) Any form "exists" if it is a part of something else that "exists."
This breaks down to

P-->E,

where:
P: A form is part of something else that exists.
E: A form exists.

The truth of the antecedent is determined by recognizing that being part of something else that exists can include being the whole part of that something else. It is just like, "the set of real numbers is a(n) (imrpoper) subset of the set of real numbers". The truth of the consequent follows trivially from the truth of the antecedent, which declares that such forms "exist".

Now, note the truth table of p-->r (lowercase letters are logical variables):

p....q....p-->r
T....T....T
T....F....F
F....T....T
F....T....T

Note that the only way for the above schema to be false is if a true antecedent implies a false consequent. That's important!

 Any form "exists" if it has been created/assembled/ or if it is a part of something else that "exists."
So now, we have changed the statement to:

(P OR C)-->E

where

C: A form has been created/assembled.

Now note the truth table of (p OR q):

p....q....(p OR q)
T....T....T
T....F....T
F....T....T
F....F....F

Note that the only way for the above schema to be false is if both p and q are false.

But earlier, we noted that the first of the two conjuncts is true. Therefore, it doesn't even matter if statement C is true or false.

Thus, the "creation" part is irrelevant to the truth or falsity of the overall statement.
 P: 1,967 Drag, his statement of existence is self-referential and redundant. There is nothing to prove.
Emeritus
PF Gold
P: 5,532
 Originally posted by wuliheron Drag, his statement of existence is self-referential and redundant. There is nothing to prove.
My post basically says that, but in a much more longwided fashion LOL!
P: 1,967
 Originally posted by Tom My post basically says that, but in a much more longwided fashion LOL!
Who says logic is only for clarifying things?
P: 1,341
 Originally posted by wuliheron Drag, his statement of existence is self-referential and redundant. There is nothing to prove.
I don't know about self-referential and
redundant because that depends upon the
type of reasoning you apply, but I do know
that it was a statement = claim, hence it
requires proof or directions to the garbage bin.

Live long and prosper.
P: 1,620
 Originally posted by Mohaamad Existence Any form "exists" if it has been created/assembled/ or if it is a part of something else that "exists." I exist because something that does not exist cannot question itself (separate logic from above).
Existence is not "mathematical"...

Existence in the real world, is defined material, and is based on:
- Motion/change to occur (matter can not be distinguished from motion/change)
- Hence, time and space have to exist
P: 1,967
 Originally posted by drag I don't know about self-referential and redundant because that depends upon the type of reasoning you apply, but I do know that it was a statement = claim, hence it requires proof or directions to the garbage bin. Live long and prosper.
No, it isn't the system of reasoning that is in question, it is the definitions of words which reasoning is based on, at least here it is for the purpose of communication. Without assuming any other assertions, his reasoning as communicated is self-referential and redundant. Here are the two assertions again:

 Any form "exists" if it has been created/assembled/ or if it is a part of something else that "exists." I exist because something that does not exist cannot question itself (separate logic from above).
To say something that is part of something else or has been created "exists" is redundant, self-referential, circular logic. It essentially says that something that exists... well... exists. Duhh!!! To also assert that someone cannot question themselves unless they exist is, again, redundant, self-referential, and circular logic.

You are of course free to ask Mohaamad if s/he is using different definitions for words or a distinctly different kind of reasoning, but unless told otherwise I shall assume their argument is self-referential, redundant, and circular logical.
 P: n/a Tom, I will read over your proof later; I have not taken logic classes before but I am sure that I can understand it if I try hard enough. In the meantime, are you agreeing or disagreeing with my statement? I am not saying that something has to be created in order to exist. My definition of existence is a narrow principle; not a grand principle. It is logical to me to say that if some form "exists" (existence in the an ultimate, absolute, philosophical sense; a common philosophyical question is whether oneself exists, superficially we can say that we do, it is more difficult to provide a philosophical "proof.") than anything else in connection (that was created, assembled, or is a part of) with this source "exists." For example, if God "exists" and he created man, than we "exist." Or if "chemical elements such as oxygen" "exists," than any compound composed of oxygen "exists." Hydrogen "exists" because water "exist" since they are both expressed in the same dimensions. Anything that can be conceptualized "exists" however one can be wrong on "how" it "exists." Somethings may "exists" as a fragment of our imagination. Despite all of this; the bigger question to be answered is whether anything exists. Thus one can understand why it is easy for somebody who does not believe in God to questions one's existence.
Emeritus
PF Gold
P: 5,532
Mohammed,

I will look at the rest of your post later, but for now...

 Originally posted by Mohaamad In the meantime, are you agreeing or disagreeing with my statement?
I say it is a true statement, because one of the conjuncts in the antecedent (specifically, "A form is part of something else that exists") is a generalized case of the consequent ("A form exists").

The statement would be just as true without the second conjunct in the antecedent ("A form has been created/assembled").
 P: n/a I think that everybody would have a better understanding of what I was trying to say if they read my last post. Here's part of it: My definition of existence is a narrow principle; not a grand principle. It is logical to me to say that if some form "exists" (existence in the an ultimate, absolute, philosophical sense; a common philosophyical question is whether oneself exists, superficially we can say that we do, it is more difficult to provide a philosophical "proof.") than anything else in connection (that was created, assembled, or is a part of) with this source "exists." For example, if God "exists" and he created man, than we "exist." Or if "chemical elements such as oxygen" "exists," than any compound composed of oxygen "exists." Hydrogen "exists" because water "exist" since they are both expressed in the same dimensions. Anything that can be conceptualized "exists" however one can be wrong on "how" it "exists." Somethings may "exists" as a fragment of our imagination. Despite all of this; the bigger question to be answered is whether anything exists. Thus one can understand why it is easy for somebody who does not believe in God to questions one's existence.
P: 1,967
 Originally posted by Mohaamad I think that everybody would have a better understanding of what I was trying to say if they read my last post.
I've read it. It is not a proof of existence, but merely a description of certain aspects of existence. Two very critical aspects for philosophical discussion, especially in the western tradition, but leaves out several other important points. The validity or reality of existence, disposition of existence, and its origin are three more critical aspects upon which your description depends and are of more interest to Asian thought.
 P: n/a According to the logic of philosophy does reality have to exist?
P: 1,620
 Originally posted by Mohaamad According to the logic of philosophy does reality have to exist?
It depends on what philosophy. Materialism clearly states there is an objective reality, which can be known.
P: 3,715
 Originally posted by Mohaamad According to the logic of philosophy does reality have to exist?
The use of the word, "reality", is too vague. If anything exists, it is "real". IOW, for something to exist, "reality" must exist.

 Related Discussions Precalculus Mathematics Homework 2 Academic Guidance 1 Introductory Physics Homework 4 Introductory Physics Homework 1 General Discussion 2