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]
