What do we define as 'existence' and what kind of existence can we recognize?

[heusdens]

In several threads the subject of existence arises.

What do we define as 'existence' and what kind of existence can we recognize?

First and foremost we should recognize that existence in the real sense (something that exists outside of our mind, has existence on it's own) is material existence. It has the basic properties of movement/change (all existence requires it to change/move in time), and it is therefore existence in a spatiotemporal way.

On the other hand we can recognize another category of existence, which is ultimately dependend on the mind itself. The set of numbers or geometrical shapes, etc., belong to this category.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by heusdens
In several threads the subject of existence arises.

What do we define as 'existence' and what kind of existence can we recognize?

First and foremost we should recognize that existence in the real sense (something that exists outside of our mind, has existence on it's own) is material existence. It has the basic properties of movement/change (all existence requires it to change/move in time), and it is therefore existence in a spatiotemporal way.

On the other hand we can recognize another category of existence, which is ultimately dependend on the mind itself. The set of numbers or geometrical shapes, etc., belong to this category.

As I see it (and I've sort of mentioned this, in another thread), everything exists. There is nothing (E.i.N.S. --> "There isn't anything) that doesn't exist.

 

[wuliheron]

ex·is·tence
n.
The fact or state of existing; being.
The fact or state of continued being; life: our brief existence on Earth.

I go with the dictionary definition and just add that existence is demonstrably paradoxical, that is, it does not make rational sense. It is this irrational character or paradox that we can recognize.

First and foremost we should recognize that existence in the real sense (something that exists outside of our mind, has existence on it's own) is material existence. It has the basic properties of movement/change (all existence requires it to change/move in time), and it is therefore existence in a spatiotemporal way.

On the other hand we can recognize another category of existence, which is ultimately dependend on the mind itself. The set of numbers or geometrical shapes, etc., belong to this category.

Thoughts are real in some sense as well. Whether we merely perceive existence or also create existence is debatable. As for existence having the basic properties of movement/change, Zeno successfully debated this issue.

Logic is based on reductio ad absurdum, faith that some things are absurd. If existence really is irrational, then everything is absurd. Therefore logic may simply be a way of catagorizing absurdities with existence being the most absurd thing or process yet discovered.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mentat
As I see it (and I've sort of mentioned this, in another thread), everything exists. There is nothing (E.i.N.S. --> "There isn't anything) that doesn't exist.

I would not say that. There are a lot of "things" that don't exist, but which can be thought of.

Look at some examples:

There isn't an atomic element above a mass of X
( I believe X to be about 250 units of mass if I'm right)

There isn't a building on Earth with a height of 1 km or longer

There isn't a rocket/spaceship that can travel faster then 1/2 c.

Etc.

So, in fact there are a lot of things, that can be thought of, but which don't exist. Some of them in theory could exist, and others are impossible to exist.

Some other issue, worth mentioning. For instance a poem. Does it exist and if so, what kinf of existence is it. We might be intrigued in calling it "real existence", cause a poem can be written down on paper, or be spoken out (sound waves), or taped on cassette.
But if all that would be destroyed, would that also destroy the poem?
Probably not, as long as there would be a mind, who could remember and reproduce the poem. But when all such minds would be extinct, the poem could said to have died as well. But it could "revive" again, when someone would reinvent or reproduce the poem, without having had any information regarding the previously existing poem.
Can a poem, or any other "existing" thing which belongs to the category of existence dependend on the mind, exist without the mind?

Take for example artihmetic. What kind of existence is that of the rules or logic of arithmetic? It isn't material, so one ought to say, it depends on the mind. But suppose the totality of civilization would be destroyed. Not a single living mind alive. Millions of years pass by, and evolution comes up with a new kind of mankind. Civilization starts again, and they happen to reinvent arithmetics.
Now, if we can call arithmetic and other such thing universal, the question is, do they depend on the mind? Or do they belong to a different kind of existence, which ain't material, but is not dependend on the mind neither, but belong to the domain of "eternal truths", just lying there for all eternity to be picked up by any mind?

Just some question on this issue of existence.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by heusdens
In several threads the subject of existence arises.

What do we define as 'existence' and what kind of existence can we recognize?

First and foremost we should recognize that existence in the real sense (something that exists outside of our mind, has existence on it's own) is material existence. It has the basic properties of movement/change (all existence requires it to change/move in time), and it is therefore existence in a spatiotemporal way.

On the other hand we can recognize another category of existence, which is ultimately dependend on the mind itself. The set of numbers or geometrical shapes, etc., belong to this category.

In this post it was already assumed, there is an existing world.
But of that, there hasn't been given any proof.

The most fundamental issue here is wether or not the world exists, if anything at all exists. And this is more as just arguing that we might have an perception of the world, but nothing real is causing that perception, at least not outside the perception itself.
Even if only perceptions exist, still 'something' exists (the perception itself).

This is a rudimentary conclusion. Existence contains at least the process of perceiving, which just proofs 'something' must be there.
We can the go on and ask: what is perceiving (what is doing the perception) and what is it that is perceived (the object or source of the perception), if anything at all can be assumed.

One of the question which can be adressed, if at least we call the 'thing' that is perceving a real thing (our mind), if the source or origin of that what we perceive comes from outside the 'thing' that perceives (our mind) or not.

At least in considering in how my mind is perceiving things, I get the impression that there is a clear and distinct line between 'inner perceptions' (thoughts, and dreams) and 'real perceptions' (looking at the sky, experiencing gravity of lack thereof, feeling cold/warm).

It is not a proof, but an indicition, something might be 'outside' my mind, that caused the perceptions.

We leave the issue at this, and turn maybe back to this later.

Let us concentrate once more on the 'fundamental question' and try to reason from there.
What does it mean for the world to be exist, or what would it mean for the world to not-exist.

Is it possible for the world to be in a form or state-of-affairs in which nothing whatsoever is existing? And if so, what is the reason that there IS an existing world (if there is one) instead of not an existing world.
On the other hand, if we can find a reason that entitles us to say or to proof that the inexistence of the world is impossible, then we can argue that there is not a reason for the world to exist, rather then not exist, since the latter possibility is excluded.

There is a rather shorthanded argument available that simple says for langue-logical reasons that, because of the way we define existence, that non-existence simply cannot be. Existence is a possibility, non-existence is not.

Which simply means, whatever can be the case in the world, there is always an existing world, rather then not a world. And from that it can be argued that there can be no reason for the world to exist.

The argument used is of course rather tautological. But according to some (many) this tautology does not address well enough the issue of why there would be something, rather then nothing.

There is also a remarkable philosophy that puts the issue in a different perspective, and that argues that, seen from a determined point of view, there is no conflict between an existing world and an non-existing world, they in fact are one and the same, and so it can be stated that in fact, the world does not really exist.

This philosophy is called http://www.hedweb.com/witherall/zero.htm" .

The position of this philosophy is summarized in the next quote.

We are used to dealing with substantial things, and we tend to think of 0, or the void, as the absence of things rather than their ultimate "summation". But this may be a problem of language rather than intelligibility. We do not have the right terms at present to describe the great totality of the world, considered as a single unit when all of its properties are taken into account. Such an entity is beyond our experience, and certainly beyond our powers of manipulation. When modern physics tells us that the ultimate value of the conserved constants of the physical universe is exactly zero, or as Pearce puts it:

"In the Universe as a whole, the conserved constants (electric charge, angular momentum, mass-energy) add up to/cancel out to exactly 0. There isn't any net electric charge or angular momentum. The world's positive mass-energy is exactly canceled out by its negative gravitational potential energy. (Provocatively, cryptically, elliptically, "nothing" exists)"

our normal conceptual resources seem to stall. Does this really mean that the substance of the world is not really substantial at all, or is it a bizarre mathematical trick which should be interpreted in some other way? It is important to understand, of course, that there really is some positive mass-energy in certain parts of the world. That is not being denied. When it is said that the quantity of mass-energy is Zero, this is only true for the world as a whole. We think that mass-bearing material things exist because we are located in a particular part of the world where they appear to exist. Only when we have a perspective on the whole world can we see that they are effectively wiped out in the overall structure of things.

What the validity is of such an approach, is up to the reader.

[to be continued]

 

[wuliheron]

What the validity is of such an approach, is up to the reader.

More to the point, its validity depends upon the standards the individual chooses to apply. The webpage you posted states first and foremost:

David Pearce has described a proposal which outlines an explanation space within which the question "Why is there something instead of nothing?" can be given a legitimate answer.

This assertion is utter bunk in my opinion. His metaphysics merely attempt to replace the paradox of existence with zero or the concept of nothingness. In this respect it resembles countless religions I can think of that also claim to explain existence better than others. What all of them fail to address other than through denial is the central issue of the paradox of existence.

The idea that somehow nothing equals something is just one of countless paradoxical ways to express the paradox of existence. Even if you are attempting to merely assert it is the simplest paradoxical explanation of existence, it has plenty of competition. That the author quotes Buddhist and Taoist ideas without acknowledging this issue demonstrates that he may have no real clue what the idea of the "ineffable" Tao really means.

 

[Messiah]

The ratio of the volume of any finite element compared to infinity is Zero.

Using any given point in space as an X,Y,Z axis, one may theoretically extend equidistant lines to infinity through the limitless spectrum of polar coordinates. The procedure inscribes a sphere which theoretically encompasses the Universe. By definition, the selected point is the center of that sphere - and the center of the Universe. Since the same can be done for all points, it means every position in the cosmos is its center. There is Zer differential.

If, for every quality there exists a reciprocal opposite, then the logical equivalent of 'nothing' exists.

It is the balance of nature - not a process of cause and effect - which reconciles the phenomenon of existence with the principles of logic.

 

[wuliheron]

If, for every quality there exists a reciprocal opposite, then the logical equivalent of 'nothing' exists.

So...nothing is a quality and a quality is nothing. Nice paradox.

 

[Messiah]

Originally posted by wuliheron
So...nothing is a quality and a quality is nothing. Nice paradox.

No. Nothing is a balance of qualities and anti-qualities the sum of which is Zero. Matter and anti-matter seem to satisfy this idea, but I think that is much too simplistic -

http://www.theory-of-reciprocity.com/entity.htm

 

[wuliheron]

Nothing is a balance of qualities and anti-qualities the sum of which is Zero.

OK, nothing is a balance and a balance is nothing. Another nice paradox.

I'm sure you must appreciate the paradox of anything you can say about nothing other than what to say what it is not... something.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by heusdens
I would not say that. There are a lot of "things" that don't exist, but which can be thought of.

Look at some examples:

There isn't an atomic element above a mass of X
( I believe X to be about 250 units of mass if I'm right)

There isn't a building on Earth with a height of 1 km or longer

There isn't a rocket/spaceship that can travel faster then 1/2 c.

Etc.

So, in fact there are a lot of things, that can be thought of, but which don't exist. Some of them in theory could exist, and others are impossible to exist.

Some other issue, worth mentioning. For instance a poem. Does it exist and if so, what kinf of existence is it. We might be intrigued in calling it "real existence", cause a poem can be written down on paper, or be spoken out (sound waves), or taped on cassette.
But if all that would be destroyed, would that also destroy the poem?
Probably not, as long as there would be a mind, who could remember and reproduce the poem. But when all such minds would be extinct, the poem could said to have died as well. But it could "revive" again, when someone would reinvent or reproduce the poem, without having had any information regarding the previously existing poem.
Can a poem, or any other "existing" thing which belongs to the category of existence dependend on the mind, exist without the mind?

Take for example artihmetic. What kind of existence is that of the rules or logic of arithmetic? It isn't material, so one ought to say, it depends on the mind. But suppose the totality of civilization would be destroyed. Not a single living mind alive. Millions of years pass by, and evolution comes up with a new kind of mankind. Civilization starts again, and they happen to reinvent arithmetics.
Now, if we can call arithmetic and other such thing universal, the question is, do they depend on the mind? Or do they belong to a different kind of existence, which ain't material, but is not dependend on the mind neither, but belong to the domain of "eternal truths", just lying there for all eternity to be picked up by any mind?

Just some question on this issue of existence.

Remember, I refer to conceptual existence as part of the whole set of things that exist. IOW, everything that you can possibly imagine exists, even if only "in your head", so to speak.

 

[greeneagle3000]

the reality of life

to me, what i see is a dream and so that's my view.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mentat
Remember, I refer to conceptual existence as part of the whole set of things that exist. IOW, everything that you can possibly imagine exists, even if only "in your head", so to speak.

The topic of this thread is "existence" and is a discussion to explore existence, and categories of existence.

You claim that everything exists. I claim it is not the case, since I can think of certain objects with certain properties, that do not really exist.

You merely say, that even if such objects are missing from the real world, we can still 'think' about them. I agree. But this 'thought' of a real object (for instance my mental picture of an apple) is not the same as the apple itself.

Even when the 'thought' is real, it does no belong to something in the real world, it is merely an abstraction from it, by manipulating the properties of real objects (using extrapolation, combination, etc).

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Messiah
If, for every quality there exists a reciprocal opposite, then the logical equivalent of 'nothing' exists.

I agreed with you, up to here. Even you saw the need to put quotation marks around "nothing". In doing so, however, you have invited a semantic argument. I will not pursue an argument about the word, "nothing", out of respect for the member who started the thread, and out of an interest in the actual theme of the thread.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by heusdens
The topic of this thread is "existence" and is a discussion to explore existence, and categories of existence.

You claim that everything exists. I claim it is not the case, since I can think of certain objects with certain properties, that do not really exist.

You merely say, that even if such objects are missing from the real world, we can still 'think' about them. I agree. But this 'thought' of a real object (for instance my mental picture of an apple) is not the same as the apple itself.

Even when the 'thought' is real, it does no belong to something in the real world, it is merely an abstraction from it, by manipulating the properties of real objects (using extrapolation, combination, etc).

So you disagree that concepts/thoughts are something?

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mentat
So you disagree that concepts/thoughts are something?

There is of course real activity in the brain involved in that, so that is 'something'.

However the issue we were discussing weather anything exists. I presented some examples of things, we can think of (as concepts), but which do not really exist.

We can think of a spacecraft that can reach speeds up to 1/2 c, but such a (human made) spacecraft is not existing.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by heusdens
There is of course real activity in the brain involved in that, so that is 'something'.

No, I mean the thought itself. I'm pretty much asking if you are a nihilist.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mentat
No, I mean the thought itself. I'm pretty much asking if you are a nihilist.

Yes, I was referring to 'the thought itself' which can for sure be states as being 'something'. It involves measurable entities (electric currents, etc).

But the 'thing' the thought (which is an entity itself) refers to in the real world, is not necessarliy existent.

For instance airplanes were present as 'thoughts' in our minds, before an actual functional airplane was ever built.

I do not know wy I seem to be a nihilist, but I prefer not to be seen as a nihilist.

 

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Mentat
I agreed with you, up to here. Even you saw the need to put quotation marks around "nothing". In doing so, however, you have invited a semantic argument. I will not pursue an argument about the word, "nothing", out of respect for the member who started the thread, and out of an interest in the actual theme of the thread.

For the sake of clarity, please consider nothing=Ø

For every value (quantitative, qualitative, positional) in the Universe there exists an equal and opposite value.
up vs down
-1 vs +1
*quality vs anti-quality
(*this is somewhat more complicated than just positive/negative or matter/antimatter)

Newton had it right. His 3rd law was a reflection of a deeper principle of nature - he just didn't take it far enough.

http://www.theory-of-reciprocity.com/evurev.gif

Theory of Reciprocity

 

[FZ+]

We still haven't discovered negative mass yet, haven't we?

 

[Messiah]

Originally posted by FZ+
We still haven't discovered negative mass yet, haven't we?

Every element (identities not made up of smaller parts - comprised only of themself) may have negative and positive mass within itself. Relative to other elements, they have 'different' mass.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Messiah
Every element (identities not made up of smaller parts - comprised only of themself) may have negative and positive mass within itself. Relative to other elements, they have 'different' mass.

If an element can be divided into smaller entities, it is not an elementary thing.

 

[Messiah]

Originally posted by heusdens
If an element can be divided into smaller entities, it is not an elementary thing.

Please define the term 'divided'.
Does it mean "capable of existing separately and apart from the whole"?
Or does it mean "a part of a single existence which is being observed"?

 

[wuliheron]

Good question, I was wondering something along the same lines. Modern quark theory suggests that quarks cannot be subdivided. The harder you try to bust them apart the harder they slam back together and a single quark by itself is an oxymoron. Hence, they may well be that elementary particle Democritus first described as "atoms".

Likewise, QM implies there most definitely is a bottom line as to how small things can get. You may be able to convert matter into energy, but you can only subdivide matter so far. Such finding contradict what is called the "chinese ladder" of infinite subdivision ya'll are talking about.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Messiah
Please define the term 'divided'.
Does it mean "capable of existing separately and apart from the whole"?
Or does it mean "a part of a single existence which is being observed"?

Well it was said that an elementary thing, could consist of negative and positive mass. It is almost identical to the situation of a proton, being made out of quarks which have charge in quantities of 1/3, 2/3, but such units of charge are never seen in the real world, cause we cannot really split the proton into separate quarks.
There are no naked particles that contain a charge smaller then 1 unit. Quarks only exist in ensembles of 3 or 2, bound by the gluon force (strong nuclear force carrier).
Same as we don't find negative mass in a separate particle, we don't find split charges in separate particles.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Messiah
For the sake of clarity, please consider nothing=Ø

For every value (quantitative, qualitative, positional) in the Universe there exists an equal and opposite value.
up vs down
-1 vs +1
*quality vs anti-quality
(*this is somewhat more complicated than just positive/negative or matter/antimatter)

Newton had it right. His 3rd law was a reflection of a deeper principle of nature - he just didn't take it far enough.

http://www.theory-of-reciprocity.com/evurev.gif

Theory of Reciprocity

I will not think of the word "nothing" as meaning something. Every time you use the word "nothing", you use it to refer to an entity of some kind. However, that is the opposite of what the word "nothing" means.

 

[Messiah]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Good question, I was wondering something along the same lines. Modern quark theory suggests that quarks cannot be subdivided. The harder you try to bust them apart the harder they slam back together and a single quark by itself is an oxymoron. Hence, they may well be that elementary particle Democritus first described as "atoms".

Likewise, QM implies there most definitely is a bottom line as to how small things can get. You may be able to convert matter into energy, but you can only subdivide matter so far. Such finding contradict what is called the "chinese ladder" of infinite subdivision ya'll are talking about.

AND

Originally posted by heusdens
Well it was said that an elementary thing, could consist of negative and positive mass. It is almost identical to the situation of a proton, being made out of quarks which have charge in quantities of 1/3, 2/3, but such units of charge are never seen in the real world, cause we cannot really split the proton into separate quarks.
There are no naked particles that contain a charge smaller then 1 unit. Quarks only exist in ensembles of 3 or 2, bound by the gluon force (strong nuclear force carrier).
Same as we don't find negative mass in a separate particle, we don't find split charges in separate particles.

APPLAUSE
Great -
Now consider that the atom may actually be an individual identity, comprised only of itself. An electron may be a propagative phenomenon which APPEARS to be a particle (like a photon) but is actually only a chain reaction from one atom to another.

From the human ability to observe, there is nothing in physics which seems to negate this perspective.

Theory of reciprocity

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Messiah
AND


APPLAUSE
Great -
Now consider that the atom may actually be an individual identity, comprised only of itself. An electron may be a propagative phenomenon which APPEARS to be a particle (like a photon) but is actually only a chain reaction from one atom to another.

From the human ability to observe, there is nothing in physics which seems to negate this perspective.

Theory of reciprocity

Well I can't accept that because we can observe electrons apart from atoms, which means, the exist aa separate entities.

 

[wuliheron]

Now consider that the atom may actually be an individual identity, comprised only of itself. An electron may be a propagative phenomenon which APPEARS to be a particle (like a photon) but is actually only a chain reaction from one atom to another.

From the human ability to observe, there is nothing in physics which seems to negate this perspective.

No, nothing that negates it, it is simply synergy considered backwards. Instead of two or more things exhibiting new properties, new properties exhibit parts. As you get down to irreducible parts such as quarks, it is difficult to tell the difference between the parts, the whole, and the properties.

As Aristotle used the absurd to prove the logical and others have used the logical to prove the absurd, your idea is of course paradoxical: Change is the only constant. The distinction is that logic is at least pragmatic and no simplier or easier to use tools are available.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wuliheron
No, nothing that negates it, it is simply synergy considered backwards. Instead of two or more things exhibiting new properties, new properties exhibit parts. As you get down to irreducible parts such as quarks, it is difficult to tell the difference between the parts, the whole, and the properties.

As Aristotle used the absurd to prove the logical and others have used the logical to prove the absurd, your idea is of course paradoxical: Change is the only constant. The distinction is that logic is at least pragmatic and no simplier or easier to use tools are available.

Why is his idea paradoxical?

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by wuliheron
As you get down to irreducible parts such as quarks, it is difficult to tell the difference between the parts, the whole, and the properties.

Quarks are a different story, they can be identified as separate entities, but they do not exist "on their own", but always in duo's (mesons) or triplets (baryons) having always neutral "colour" charge.

Electrons are definitely separate entities, they can exist far from atoms.

 

[wuliheron]

Quarks are a different story, they can be identified as separate entities, but they do not exist "on their own", but always in duo's (mesons) or triplets (baryons) having always neutral "colour" charge.

Very funny, a separate entities that can't be seperated.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Very funny, a separate entities that can't be seperated.

Yes, sometimes nature is funny, and laughs you in the face.

Come and split those quarks, and every attempt to do so, requires so much energy that on the fly you just create more quarks, instead of seperating them.

Nature can be funny, indeed!

 

[Messiah]

Originally posted by wuliheron
No, nothing that negates it, it is simply synergy considered backwards. Instead of two or more things exhibiting new properties, new properties exhibit parts. As you get down to irreducible parts such as quarks, it is difficult to tell the difference between the parts, the whole, and the properties.

As Aristotle used the absurd to prove the logical and others have used the logical to prove the absurd, your idea is of course paradoxical: Change is the only constant. The distinction is that logic is at least pragmatic and no simplier or easier to use tools are available.

How would any observer be able to distinguish between two independent elements (consisting only of themselves) and two PARTS of a single independent element?

It is the opinion of the Theory of Reciprocity that an independent identity/element would be that which has qualities and countervalent properties which total Ø. A single, unique manifestation of Zero. If any part of the element ceased to exist or was separated from the whole, the balance would be violated and a law of nature would be broken.

Have you browsed the theory??

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Messiah

It is the opinion of the Theory of Reciprocity that an independent identity/element would be that which has qualities and countervalent properties which total Ø. A single, unique manifestation of Zero. If any part of the element ceased to exist or was separated from the whole, the balance would be violated and a law of nature would be broken.

Have you browsed the theory?? [/B]

Sure, I looked at the theory. Nothing equals something, change is the only constant, etc. It is a Pantheistic view of the paradox of existence which fails to directly address these paradoxes it generates. Unless it can prove more useful than existing physical theories it serves no purpose outside of the personal.

How would any observer be able to distinguish between two independent elements (consisting only of themselves) and two PARTS of a single independent element?

Just as up and down can be distinguished within a single unified dimension we call "height". Parts and wholes are relative aspects where each term implies the existence of the other. No parts, no wholes, no wholes, no parts. Both are aspects of a single unified view again we call "identity".