Existence

[lifegazer]

The existence of some tangible entity or entities is ascertained, I should think. Who here will argue that 'nothing', fundamentally, does exist?
So, existence is. There is a reality of something, and not nothing.

We can say that existence cannot be finite or bounded in any way whatsoever.
A real finite-existence within 'nothing'? Not a rational possibility. "Nothing" cannot embrace a real finite-entity. Therefore, existence is boundless and infinite, in itself. A singularity of existence.
Also, something cannot emanate from absolutely-nothing. Therefore; 'something' has always existed. Existence is also eternal.
Whatever does exist is its own cause... is an effect of no-thing else. Therefore; this 'thing' is the primal-cause of every effect which proceeds it. Every thing which we perceive in existence, is actually caused/created by whatever existence actually is. Existence is real... therefore an entity, at least, forms the basis of this existence. We cannot ascertain that existence is real and then argue that existence has no definite identity. I mean, it may have no identity due to our ignorance of its identity... but in truth, we can know that a tangible existence has a definite identity.

... In spite of our disagreements and ignorances in identifying the essence of reality of all perceived existence, we must surely agree that a definite existence has a definite identity.
When we acknowledge the existence of something real, we must also acknowledge that it cannot be embraced by nothing. Therefore, we can conclude that existence is boundless - a singularity of existence.
At singularity, space and time become meaningless except as concepts within awareness. I.e., space and time are seen within the mind... but in the reality of a singularity, they do not exist.

Everything occurs within an omnipresent Mind. There is nowhere else for it to occur.

edit: I apologise to the mentors - realise now that I should post this in the religion & philosophy forum.

 

[Ed]

Can you understand that none of this matters to me in the slightest? I am not being rude, I am simply stating a fact.

Matter, no matter, being and nothingness, I and Thou, I see no point to discussing it.

 

[lifegazer]

Can you understand that none of this matters to me in the slightest? I am not being rude, I am simply stating a fact.

Why did you tell me that Ed? I only want to talk to people who are interested in philosophical analysis of 'reality'. Your indifference tells me nothing.

Matter, no matter, being and nothingness, I and Thou, I see no point to discussing it.

Then don't Ed.

 

[Beleth]

Yeah, this is totally the wrong forum.

Things can be boundless and yet finite. The surface of a ball, for instance.

That existence is eternal is not something that can be scientifically verified. There does in fact seem to be a time where existence started, before which we can know nothing about.

Your last sentence does not preceed from your previous sentences. There was a great deal of time in which the universe existed before there were any minds (capitalized or otherwise) to perceive it.

 

[Mercutio]

Can you understand that none of this matters to me in the slightest? I am not being rude, I am simply stating a fact.

Matter, no matter, being and nothingness, I and Thou, I see no point to discussing it.

...and yet one cannot see no point in discussing nothing, one must see no point in discussing something. Therefore, lack of desire to discuss something, is really a desire to discuss nothing.

Furthermore, since to discuss, we must discuss something; to discuss nothing means that nothing is, in fact, something. By simple identity, ergo, something is nothing.

When we acknowledge the existence, or rather non-existence, or something, or rather nothing, we acknowledge nothing other than our own existence (or perhaps lack thereof), and the lack of omnipresent mind, or even mind at all.

Having disproven mind, or rather having demonstrated that it does not matter, we progress to whether matter minds. Nothing, of course, could be further from the truth. That is to say, it (nothing) could be (but is not) further from the truth. Therefore, the truth is that there is a lot of nothing out there. And that is just the nothing that we can't see from where we are. The nothing we can see may very well be infinite.

We can say that existence cannot be finite or bounded in any way whatsoever.

As I demonstrate here, we can say virtually anything. Doesn't mean it means anything. It may mean nothing.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Mercutio said:

Furthermore, since to discuss, we must discuss something; to discuss nothing means that nothing is, in fact, something. By simple identity, ergo, something is nothing.

This is incoherent. Otherwise, I agree with everything you said.

~~ Paul

 

[Mercutio]

Mercutio said:
This is incoherent. Otherwise, I agree with everything you said.

~~ Paul

Read it again...it actually works...

"peace, peace, Mercutio, peace!
thou talk'st of nothing!" R&J I.iv.95-96

 

[Yahweh]

The existence of some tangible entity or entities is ascertained, I should think. Who here will argue that 'nothing', fundamentally, does exist?
So, existence is. There is a reality of something, and not nothing.

You've got a bit of semantics going on.

For instance, a person like me would more likely say the word "nothing" does not fundamentally exist, it would probably be better represented with "absense of existence".

We can say that existence cannot be finite or bounded in any way whatsoever.

I dont understand what the means.

A real finite-existence within 'nothing'? Not a rational possibility.

More semantics? Or I am generally confused.

A real "finite existence" is irrational, but this does not limited my options enough to suggest "infinite existence" within nothing is rational or not... I dont know what to make of it.

Also, you seem to be equating something abstract (the word "exist") to be something which exists concretely in reality, that would be a logical error.

"Nothing" cannot embrace a real finite-entity. Therefore, existence is boundless and infinite, in itself.

That assumption is inherently flawed, "nothing" is the absense of objective existence.

I dont understand what you mean by "existence is boundless and infinite, in itself".

A singularity of existence.
Also, something cannot emanate from absolutely-nothing.

Not according to quantum physics...

Therefore; 'something' has always existed.

Yes, stuff has existed since the beginning of time.

Nothing could have existed before the big bang because the big bang represented t=0. Its not possible for anything to exist before time.

Existence is also eternal.

Also true... unless the universe collapses upon itself.

Whatever does exist is its own cause... is an effect of no-thing else. Therefore; this 'thing' is the primal-cause of every effect which proceeds it.

I'm again unclear on what you define as existence.

Every thing which we perceive in existence, is actually caused/created by whatever existence actually is.

What?

Existence is real... therefore an entity, at least, forms the basis of this existence.

That is logically inconsistant with the way you described existence (and I have no idea where you pulled "therefore an entity" from).

We cannot ascertain that existence is real and then argue that existence has no definite identity.

Semantics. Existence is a concept to describe "objectively real in reality", you appear to be defining it as some kind "entity" which would be incorrect.

I mean, it may have no identity due to our ignorance of its identity... but in truth, we can know that a tangible existence has a definite identity.

Existence is a concept blah blah (what I said above).

... In spite of our disagreements and ignorances in identifying the essence of reality of all perceived existence, we must surely agree that a definite existence has a definite identity.

Try explaining that to a Nihilist.

When we acknowledge the existence of something real, we must also acknowledge that it cannot be embraced by nothing. Therefore, we can conclude that existence is boundless - a singularity of existence.
At singularity, space and time become meaningless except as concepts within awareness. I.e., space and time are seen within the mind... but in the reality of a singularity, they do not exist.

Space does exist.

Time is a word used to describe "the passing of events from one to another". I would be insane to say time stands still (it would be a logical contradiction to percieve something if time were to stand still).

Everything occurs within an omnipresent Mind. There is nowhere else for it to occur.

Incorrect.

I dont know where you pulled "omnipresent Mind" from.

Also, existence is not limited to what we percieve in the mind, that would defeat the purpose of "existence".

 

[lifegazer]

Things can be boundless and yet finite. The surface of a ball, for instance.

This is incorrect. The surface of the sphere is bounded by something perpendicular to its plain (both sides)... Otherwise, it cannot have existence as a spherical-plain.

That existence is eternal is not something that can be scientifically verified.

The limits of science are not limits to reason. Something cannot come from nor exist within absolutely-nothing. Therefore, since something exists, something has always existed = existence is eternal.

There was a great deal of time in which the universe existed before there were any minds (capitalized or otherwise) to perceive it.

Particles only exist where minds see them. Before minds, nothing existed in definite form, because only minds see reality as 'things' within space & time.

 

[Yahweh]

Particles only exist where minds see them. Before minds, nothing existed in definite form, because only minds see reality as 'things' within space & time.

Incorrect.

Unless I dont understand your definition of existence, I will have to say that things can and do exist without ever having been percieved. I do happen to have a brain, I've never seen it but I'm fairly sure its there.

Others would argue that we cannot trust our senses to give us an accurate view of reality. For instance, when I am asleep, and I'm dreaming of... kittens... those kittens dont really exist (which, by what I understand of how you related perception and existence, the kittens should exist as I did in fact percieve them), they only remain a dream.

 

[lifegazer]

You've got a bit of semantics going on.

For instance, a person like me would more likely say the word "nothing" does not fundamentally exist, it would probably be better represented with "absense of existence".

Existence of something real/definite is ascertained unless you want to argue that 'nothing' is reality. Be my guest.

"We can say that existence cannot be finite or bounded in any way whatsoever."

I dont understand what the means.

Existence as a whole is not finite. For example, existence doesn't stretch across a finite length.

"A real finite-existence within 'nothing'? Not a rational possibility."

More semantics? Or I am generally confused.

This is simple language. Existence as a whole cannot be embraced by nothing, since this would reduce existence to nothing. And we've already ascertained that existence is not nothing.

Also, you seem to be equating something abstract (the word "exist") to be something which exists concretely in reality, that would be a logical error.

Either 'something' has definite existence, or 'nothing' is the state of reality. You are evading reason by avoiding this necessity of affairs.

""Nothing" cannot embrace a real finite-entity. Therefore, existence is boundless and infinite, in itself."

That assumption is inherently flawed, "nothing" is the absense of objective existence.

Exactly. In which case, 'nothing' cannot embrace the surface of a finite object... can it?

I dont understand what you mean by "existence is boundless and infinite, in itself".

Existence is a singularity of being. Without beginning or end, without space or time. Yet boundless in its potential to see such things.

"Also, something cannot emanate from absolutely-nothing."

Not according to quantum physics...

Physicists only deal with matter/energy. If you tell a physicist that there was once a time when matter/energy did not exist, he automatically assumes that 'nothing' preceded it. But there is not one iota of proof that such an assumption is real.

Why don't you ask one of those smart physicists where a 1-dimensional string or a 2-dimensional plane has existence, except in the mind.

Nothing could have existed before the big bang because the big bang represented t=0. Its not possible for anything to exist before time.

The big-bang represents time [= change] for the present order of existence. That there was once a moment when t = 0, does not infer that 'nothing' existed before this state of change.

Space does exist.

You know this, how?

Time is a word used to describe "the passing of events from one to another". I would be insane to say time stands still (it would be a logical contradiction to percieve something if time were to stand still).

Not if that thing never really changes, but has existence.

 

[ImpyTimpy]

Sock attack? I mean, does anyone else recognise the "if I don't see it, it doesn't exist" pattern. Or did our other "mystic" simply vanish once nobody paid attention to him in the R&P forum.

 

[Ratman_tf]

Yeah, this is totally the wrong forum.

*Nods*

Can some mod please move this thread where it belongs?

 

[Yahweh]

Re: Re: Existence

--------------------------------------------------
You've got a bit of semantics going on.

For instance, a person like me would more likely say the word "nothing" does not fundamentally exist, it would probably be better represented with "absense of existence".
--------------------------------------------------

Existence of something real/definite is ascertained unless you want to argue that 'nothing' is reality. Be my guest.

Completely misrepresenting my position to make it easier to attack me, that doesnt constitute as a strong arguement.

--------------------------------------------------
quote:
"We can say that existence cannot be finite or bounded in any way whatsoever."

I dont understand what the means.
--------------------------------------------------

Existence as a whole is not finite. For example, existence doesn't stretch across a finite length.

Semantics. Existence is defined as "being actual in objective reality".

"Existence" is an abstract concept, you are trying to treat it as something which is concrete. You are trying to give existence physical characteristics, this is a logical error.

--------------------------------------------------
quote:
"A real finite-existence within 'nothing'? Not a rational possibility."

More semantics? Or I am generally confused.
--------------------------------------------------

This is simple language. Existence as a whole cannot be embraced by nothing, since this would reduce existence to nothing. And we've already ascertained that existence is not nothing.

Well, I think I understand now.

And you would be correct, something that "exists" cannot also be "nothing", that would be a logical contradiction.

The question is now, what's the point you were trying to make (aside from making the obvious more "obvious-er")?

--------------------------------------------------
quote:
Also, you seem to be equating something abstract (the word "exist") to be something which exists concretely in reality, that would be a logical error.
--------------------------------------------------

Either 'something' has definite existence, or 'nothing' is the state of reality. You are evading reason by avoiding this necessity of affairs.

I am in no way being evasive.

I would agree, things that exist do exist, no confusion there.

--------------------------------------------------
quote:
""Nothing" cannot embrace a real finite-entity. Therefore, existence is boundless and infinite, in itself."

That assumption is inherently flawed, "nothing" is the absense of objective existence.
--------------------------------------------------

Exactly. In which case, 'nothing' cannot embrace the surface of a finite object... can it?

If I understand correctly (and I'll tell you I am have plenty of difficulty), then the answer is "No".

--------------------------------------------------
quote:
I dont understand what you mean by "existence is boundless and infinite, in itself".
--------------------------------------------------

Existence is a singularity of being. Without beginning or end, without space or time. Yet boundless in its potential to see such things.

I dont know what you are talking about when you use the word "singularity".

However, something cannot exist outside of time and space. First, it is logically impossible. Second, it is physically impossible. Third, that would cause it to stop existing (which would contradict the original notion of "existing outside of space and time").

--------------------------------------------------
quote:
"Also, something cannot emanate from absolutely-nothing."

Not according to quantum physics...
--------------------------------------------------

Physicists only deal with matter/energy. If you tell a physicist that there was once a time when matter/energy did not exist, he automatically assumes that 'nothing' preceded it. But there is not one iota of proof that such an assumption is real.

Without proof, what are left with but logic?

Why don't you ask one of those smart physicists where a 1-dimensional string or a 2-dimensional plane has existence, except in the mind.

Those things are purely the work of the imagination, they do not exist objectively.

0-dimension = point
1-dimension = line, 2 points are required to make a line
2-dimension = plane, 1 line and a point, or 3 points is required to make a plane
3-dimension = space, 2 planes are required to make space
(Welcome to 8th grade Geometry, kids!)

By the way, there are an infinite number of hypothetical spatial n-dimensions, they only "exist" (not in a literal sense) in theoretical mathematics. <--- That's what one of those smart physicists would say.

--------------------------------------------------
quote:
Nothing could have existed before the big bang because the big bang represented t=0. Its not possible for anything to exist before time.
--------------------------------------------------

The big-bang represents time [= change] for the present order of existence. That there was once a moment when t = 0, does not infer that 'nothing' existed before this state of change.

Actually, it infers nothing (for lack of better words) could exist before the big bang (unless you want to talk about previous "bangs" and "crunches"). Where T=0, that's the beginning. Nothing can come before T=0, otherwise it would be something like T=-1 which is a logical contradiction. (I would be like trying to measure a negative distance.)

Nothing I've stated so far has been out of the grasp of a 15 year old.

--------------------------------------------------
quote:
Space does exist.
--------------------------------------------------

You know this, how?

Do you understand the relationship between space and time? If not, you're making Einstein cry.

Also, without space, time could not logically occur (this ties into why nothing could exist before the big bang).

--------------------------------------------------
quote:
Time is a word used to describe "the passing of events from one to another". I would be insane to say time stands still (it would be a logical contradiction to percieve something if time were to stand still).
--------------------------------------------------

Not if that thing never really changes, but has existence.

Sorry, that's chemistry you're referring to.

Glad to see you havent lost your sense of humor, Franko.

 

[lifegazer]

"Existence" is an abstract concept, you are trying to treat it as something which is concrete. You are trying to give existence physical characteristics, this is a logical error.

Something is real. Are you going to deny this and state that 'nothing' is the true state of affairs, or are you going to accept it, at last?

Well, I think I understand now.

And you would be correct, something that "exists" cannot also be "nothing", that would be a logical contradiction.

Exactly. So existence is "concrete" in the sense that something has definite existence - not to be confused with physical existence. That's just your bias playing havoc with reason.

The question is now, what's the point you were trying to make (aside from making the obvious more "obvious-er")?

If you agree that existence is definitely real, you must also agree that existence cannot be finite in length or volume - since it cannot be embraced by nothing. Thus, by a simple process of reasoning, you have come to discover that existence is infinitely boundless.

I dont know what you are talking about when you use the word "singularity".

A singularity is a realm of indivisible existence. A place where time and space have no meaning... as do 'beginning' and 'end'. There are no bounds within a singularity.

However, something cannot exist outside of time and space. First, it is logically impossible.

It is only logically impossible if you associate existence with space and time. Yet it is simple to show that existence, as a whole, is a singularity where space and time are fundamentally non-existent. Your objection is unreasonable.

Second, it is physically impossible.

Well I never said that existence was, fundamentally, physical.

Third, that would cause it to stop existing (which would contradict the original notion of "existing outside of space and time").

No. It would simply mean that existence, essentially, is not a finite physical-object embroiled within space and time.
What's happening here is that your awareness refuses to accept the notion that existence can be anything other than what is perceived. The problem with this stance, is that things which are perceived are all finite and embroiled within spacetime. Yet I have clearly shown that Existence is neither finite nor embroiled within spacetime. I.e., what's in your awareness represents the illusion of existence.

0-dimension = point
1-dimension = line, 2 points are required to make a line
2-dimension = plane, 1 line and a point, or 3 points is required to make a plane
3-dimension = space, 2 planes are required to make space
(Welcome to 8th grade Geometry, kids!)

By the way, there are an infinite number of hypothetical spatial n-dimensions, they only "exist" (not in a literal sense) in theoretical mathematics. <--- That's what one of those smart physicists would say.

Exactly. So how does a physicist reconcile string-theories to 'reality'? How can reality emanate from concepts of the mind?

 

[Suezoled]

Dear God,

I do believe your follower Lifegazer is an Animist at heart. Please make him/her stop, as it makes all Animists who properly believe in the spirits of objects, items, people, and ancestors, look bad.

Also, Lifegazer is using the same tired old argument of intelligent design, the concept of beginning and end, and yet also argues for eternity in your existence. Lifegazer also presumes to force a wavering description of existence itself, puts words in people's mouths, and then procedes to refute those words.

Also, thanks to Lifegazer to posting links about the existence of god. Oh, wait, it hasn't happened yet.

Suezoled

 

[Ed]

Dear God,


Also, thanks to Lifegazer to posting links about the existence of god. Oh, wait, it hasn't happened yet.

Suezoled

I'm the closest you are going to come, kiddo.

 

[hammegk]

LOL. A sock? Or new meat?

 

[lifegazer]

It's very simple reasoning really...

1. Existence is.
2. Whatever existence is (note that the identity of existence is irrelevant to the proceeding conclusion), we can say that this existence is boundless. Existence cannot be finite in nature.
3. If we acknowledge that existence as a whole is boundless, existence is reduced to a mathematical singularity.
4. Also, since existence cannot emanate from nor be embraced by 'nothing', we can say that existence is eternal and that time is a concept which only applies to things perceived within existence - but not to existence itself.
5. Hence, existence is a singularity of eternal-being, without beginning or end.

Spare me future nonsense - you either want sincere debate or you do not. Those that do not are just littering my threads.

 

[Suezoled]

Dear Ed,

I think you should get a better mouthpiece. The one called Lifegazer seems to be getting a bit irate. Something about he/she doesn't like it when people clutter "his/her" threads. Anyway, teaching him/her a bit about patience would be a good thing. When you want to teach them a lesson, don't you do stuff like slaughter firstborn sons, demand animal sacrifice, turn people out of their homes, and/or turn them into salt?

And finally, Lifegazer, where are your d*mn links?