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

[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".

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Messiah


Have you browsed the theory??

Well I have, and I think it's utter nonsense, from the moment they postulate the existence of nothing. Existence is something.[/color]

Besides, if it exists for a certain amount of time, then time must also exist, and that's something as well.

Oh well, that's a topic for another thread - let's not side-track this one.