Existence

[lifegazer]

It doesn't. The surface of the sphere is touching nothing, therefore there are no "different points" to touch. There is nothing. The idea of different points of nothing, or of some big expanse of nothing "embracing" something is non-sensical. You are assuming that the nothing is something, or at least you are applying 'something' style rules to it. Nothing is nothing - there is no expanse, and no different points.

If a finite object is to be considered "real", then there must be a distinction to be made between the points existing within its surface and those points of existence upon its surface. For it is true that the points within the surface are completely enveloped by its own being, whereas those upon the surface are not. Indeed, it is clear that those points-of-existence upon the surface are also in contact with another reality that is different to itself.

At the end of your statement, you actually seem to concur that nothing can have no expanse around a point of being. I'm not sure why you are complaining about my reason.

 

[lifegazer]

Why must existence be enveloped by anything?

I never said it must. Indeed, it is my contention that existence is boundless because a finite whole-existence within nothing is an irrational concept.

People have already used a sphere as an example. From the standpoint or the surface of the sphere the entire universe seems a slighly curved plane. If you walk far enough you end up back where you started. If there is no way off the sphere then it is a self contained exististance without being bounded by anything but the surface of the sphere, which exists.

The surface of a 3-dimensional sphere is bounded upon its surface, by another medium. In our case, space. We are kept upon the surface by gravity. We are not constrained by dimensional limits.

So if the universe operates the same way, and we sent a probe out to the edge of the universe and it ends up coming back to us from the other direction, what does that show?

It shows me that a force exists which prevents us becoming free of spacetime. It does not show me that nothing extends around existence.

"I know that existence is real/true/definite. Something is. And I can know that this definite being cannot be embraced by 'nothing'. These two simple facts form the basis of my argument."

... they're both assumptions, and while it's possible to form an argument from them it seems many people in this thread dispute the second one. As far as I know it is not a "fact" as for it to be a fact it needs to be verifiable, and I don't believe there's a way to verify it. Perhaps someone else has an idea on that.

It's an assumption to declare that 'something' has definite/true being? Surely not, for that leaves us with nothing, otherwise.
And I have no idea how reason can argue against the second one either. How can reason accept the notion of true being within nothing and embraced by nothing? Let us remember the distinction which exists between points-of-existence upon the surface of an object, and those p-of-e's within that object. Those upon the surface are only partially enveloped by other points of existence. So what else completes the envelopment of this definite object?

 

[Phil]

You've misunderstood me. It is my contention that existence as a whole cannot be finite. A finite existence is an impossible scenario in that 'nothing' cannot envelope such an entity. Therefore, something else must. Yet "existence as a whole" is considering all things together. And I contend that existence as a whole cannot be finite, since reason cannot accept the existence of a real volume of space within and enveloped by 'nothing'.

There's nothing hypothetical about this. I know that existence is real/true/definite. Something is. And I can know that this definite being cannot be embraced by 'nothing'. These two simple facts form the basis of my argument.

I'm sorry, I've read your posts more closely, and I was mistaken. But now that I'm a little clearer on what you were asserting initially, I have to ask why even a finite existence would be enveloped by something? Other people have suggested scenarios comparable to the surface of a sphere, where existence is bound by nothing, yet finite.

And it seems that you are making some assumptions by saying that at what you're calling a 'singularity', "space and time become meaningless except as concepts within awareness". If you have some way of showing this to be true, I'd love to see it.

Now, I'll admit that I've heard that in a singularity, as it relates to a black hole, physics, and therefore space and time, become meaningless. But it seems you are using 'singularity' to mean not an instance of infinite gravity and infinite curvature, but an infinite existence, or simply a universe without bounds. Within that definition, I don't think that space and time are meaningless. I think quite the contrary, especially to an observer of that universe.

And if that is the case, your assertion that "space and time are seen within the mind . . .Everything occurs within an omnipresent Mind. There is nowhere else for it to occur" does not stand up to scrutiny.

edited: Site went screwy for a while. No idea how many posts have slipped in before me.

 

[TLN]

And it seems that you are making some assumptions by saying that at what you're calling a 'singularity', "space and time become meaningless except as concepts within awareness". If you have some way of showing this to be true, I'd love to see it.

Yes, please, or quit wasting our time.

 

[lifegazer]

I'm sorry, I've read your posts more closely, and I was mistaken. But now that I'm a little clearer on what you were asserting initially, I have to ask why even a finite existence would be enveloped by something? Other people have suggested scenarios comparable to the surface of a sphere, where existence is bound by nothing, yet finite.

A finite existence cannot be enveloped by nothing = a finite object must be enveloped by something else which also has real being. And like I said, we are considering existence as a whole - in which case there is no other things left to envelope it. That leaves nothing. But nothing cannot have the ability to envelope
things. Hence, existence as a whole is non-finite = a singularity. And the existence of finite beings is something which occurs within existence. But existence itself is not a finite-being. It just embraces such things within itself.
This is where 'perception' becomes an issue. At singularity, space and time are meaningless. Thus, the existence of beginnings/ends/space/time is something which can only occur within awareness, as an illusion.

And it seems that you are making some assumptions by saying that at what you're calling a 'singularity', "space and time become meaningless except as concepts within awareness". If you have some way of showing this to be true, I'd love to see it.

A singularity of being is actually indivisible, in itself. Hence, the appearance of divisibility within a singularity, must be as an illusion within awareness.

Now, I'll admit that I've heard that in a singularity, as it relates to a black hole, physics, and therefore space and time, become meaningless. But it seems you are using 'singularity' to mean not an instance of infinite gravity and infinite curvature, but an infinite existence, or simply a universe without bounds. Within that definition, I don't think that space and time are meaningless. I think quite the contrary, especially to an observer of that universe.

If existence as a whole has no bounds, then what can fragment it into parts with boundaries separating those parts? Only the mind.

 

[Yahweh]

Re: Re: Existence

--------------------------------------------------
"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?

Lots of stuff is "real". In fact, everything that objectively exists is real.

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.

That's exactly what I did not imply. Keep your strawmen to yourself.

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.

Absolutely wrong.

Do you understand the meaning of the word "existence"?

How about the word "concept"?

How about the relationship between "things that are real" and "things that are abstract"?

Would you explain what "infinitely boundless" means?

Do you realize the obvious flaw with suggesting space is infinite (which would imply infinite bounds of existence)? You cannot have an infinity, you can always add "1" to the number infinity, therefore "existence is infinitely boundless" is inherently flawed.

The universe includes all the space that exists, the universe is finite, therefore space is finite. From that you can rationally conclude "nothing" exists beyond the boundaries of the universe. Of course "nothing" is the absense of existence, therefore you can say existence is finite but not "enveloped" by anything. Good, I just described how "nothing" (I cant find any better words... semantics are bound to be confused sooner or later) envelopes existence (what a waste of my day)...

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.

Mixing cosmology and Philosophy, not a good thing.

First, you intial claim "realm of indivisible existence" is flawed, you are again trying to treat "existence" as a physical entity. That would be like saying "suction" exists.

"A singularity is a realm of indivisible existence" and "there are no bounds within a singularity" are mutually exclusive phrases. Your "reasoning" is logically inconsistant.

--------------------------------------------------
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.

Mixing Philosophy with cosmology is not a good idea...

I am beginning to doubt if you have any idea what you are talking about... (I'm beginning to think you are just making this stuff up as you go along...)

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

Existence is defined as "is real in objective reality", therefore the only things that exist are limited to being physical, the rest do not exist, they are just human-defined abstract concepts (such as numbers, colors, smells, speed, plenty of other things).

--------------------------------------------------
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.

There is no way you could have made that conclusion with my above response.

What's happening here is that your awareness refuses to accept the notion that existence can be anything other than what is perceived.

I am inclined to ask "what the ◊◊◊◊?".

I have in no way suggested that, that is exactly what I was not saying, in fact, I believe I stated exactly the opposite. Dont you remember when I stated, from my second post in this thread, the following:
"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."

The problem with this stance, is that things which are perceived are all finite and embroiled within spacetime.

The problem with your above statement is the fact that perception does not alter objective reality. Also, things which exist are "embroiled" within space and time (I understand what you mean when you used the word "spacetime", unfortunately you used it in a bewildering "completely-unrelated-to-the-rest-of-the-sentence" fashion).

Yet I have clearly shown that Existence is neither finite nor embroiled within spacetime.

I dont believe you've done any such thing.

I.e., what's in your awareness represents the illusion of existence.

Ok, unless I dont understand correctly, you just disastrously contradicted yourself. You accept that things exist, but then you called it an illusion, those two claims are contradictory with one another. Your reasoning is inconsistant.

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

From everything you've stated, I cannot in any way gather that you have any working knowledge of String Theory, Philosophical Identity, basic Physics, an understanding of "semantics", or the Philosophy of Existence. If any of that is true, then you are obviously speaking out of your field of expertise (what is your field of expertise?) and you havent understood a single thing I've written.

Am I avoiding answer the questions? Of course not, your questions are incomprehensible and a good lot of them are hardly logically consistant. I've addressed everything you've had to say, you ask the same questions with brand new orders of words (at least when thinking optimistically), I dont like the circularity.

Unless I see something I havent answered already, I wont be responding to another of your posts from this thread.

 

[Suezoled]

Says Lifegazer in this thread

Show me where I mentioned links.
What I did say, was starting this week I will be presenting some ideas to suggest that 'reality' is God. This thread is the first of those ideas.

Says Lifegazer in the Skepticism thread:

I shall present a thread or two tomorrow, to link perceived existence to this state of being - 'God' - which is the true reality behind everything.

So I says, "Show me the d*mn links you were saying where everything is in relation to god." There's not a dang thing you've said so far to link the two.

 

[Beleth]

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.

Nope. The surface of a sphere has no bounds. You never come to the edge of a sphere. "Boundless" and "infinite" are not interchangeable.

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.

Why not? Why can't something come from nothing? The only evidence you have that something doesn't come from nothing is that you have never observed it happen, and, like you said, the limits of science (observation) are not the limits of reason.

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

Does the Andromeda Galaxy exist? Did it exist 200 million years ago? There were no minds to see it 200 million years ago, yet by our observations, we know that it did indeed exist then.

 

[lifegazer]

Lots of stuff is "real". In fact, everything that objectively exists is real.

What's real? Try proving to me, using reason, that anything you perceive within awareness actually exists by itself, beyond your awareness. I.e., prove that there is an existence beyond anyones awareness. It cannot be done, I promise you.
In fact, the only 'reality' we are actually aware of, is one of awareness, sensation, reason, and feeling. Our knowledge is deduced via the reasoning of sensations. Thus, it is clear to see that all knowledge relates to an internal-reality, not an external-reality. Every known object should really be qualified as being within awareness. For example, the dog in my awareness made a barking noise in my awareness at the cat in my awareness. All happens within awareness. Not external to it. That information has been assumed.

Do you realize the obvious flaw with suggesting space is infinite (which would imply infinite bounds of existence)?

Actually, I implied that existence was totally boundless. I did not infer from this that existence was 'space' or that existence is comprised of infinite space. In fact, I've stated that existence is a singularity of being. A singularity of being is indivisible in truth. Hence, 'space' is a nonentity... as is "infinite space". It's my argument that space and time can only exist as thoughts and concepts within the mind.

"A singularity is a realm of indivisible existence" and "there are no bounds within a singularity" are mutually exclusive phrases. Your "reasoning" is logically inconsistant.

I disagree. Both state that there is no divisibility within a singularity.

 

[Yahzi]

Re: Re: Existence

you must also agree that existence cannot be finite in length or volume - since it cannot be embraced by nothing.

You keep saying this over and over. But it is merely an usupported assumption. Why can't it be embraced by nothing? It's not logically impossible, and we don't evidence one way or another. So how can you assert it as obvious?

A singularity of being is indivisible in truth

Ok, now you're just making word salad. Frankly, Mercutio's was much better. Yours is a little dry and kind of boring.

 

[lifegazer]

Re: Re: Re: Existence

You keep saying this over and over. But it is merely an usupported assumption. Why can't it be embraced by nothing? It's not logically impossible, and we don't evidence one way or another. So how can you assert it as obvious?

You really believe that 'nothing' can be displaced to allow the existence of something? You really believe that nothing can stretch around the surface of a finite object?

 

[RussDill]

stop the insanity

Sorry, it was too much for me, I had to create an account in an attempt to make it stop.

Any-who, lifegazer, you are a victim of your perceptions that have been molded to fit this reality. In your mind, you see a sphere in three dimensional space, and quite clearly, its 2d surface is surounded by nothing.

So you counter, you think, but the space around me has no limits, it cannot have limits, and unlike the surface of a sphere, is clearly not surrounded by nothing.

But there is a problem, you are comparing the 2d surface of a sphere, to the 3d space you live in. For this comparison to be fair, you need to compare a 2d plane, to a sphere. Is one more surrounded by nothing than the other? no. Both are mearly a mathematical concept that can help show us what the space we live in is like. These models have limits. Also, note that we can increase the dimensions of these models as high as you want.

You don't have to imagine a closed, but boundless space with a sphere, just imagine it as ever repeating mirrors, or a giant pac-man game.

Just please realize this, your reality shapes your perceptions, mankind has had a lot of great breakthoughs as of late that break though our preceptions and show us reality, even though it doesn't make a whole lot of sense with our day to day interactions (Atomic structure of matter, empty space, relativity, quantum theory, etc).

If nothing else, read the book, "Nothingness", by Henning Genz. Its just a book on the science and history of empty space, but it shows how our perceptions reality gives us really mess with science, and how they are slowly overcome. Its a real eye-opener for how one thinks.

 

[lifegazer]

Re: stop the insanity

But there is a problem, you are comparing the 2d surface of a sphere, to the 3d space you live in. For this comparison to be fair, you need to compare a 2d plane, to a sphere. Is one more surrounded by nothing than the other? no. Both are mearly a mathematical concept that can help show us what the space we live in is like. These models have limits. Also, note that we can increase the dimensions of these models as high as you want.

I'm not sure what your point is. Our existence is within 3 spatial dimensions, and if you are advocating the finiteness of this existence, then at some point you have to explain what resides beyond this existence. A finite existence must be enveloped by something else - not necessarily more space as we know it, but definitely 'something' as opposed to 'nothing'. This is simply obvious to me, but the skeptics here are trying their utmost to avoid this conclusion.

 

[asthmatic camel]

I could be mistaken, but my highly trained nasal receptors appear to have detected the delicate fragrance of my favourite perfume, Eau de Merde.

 

[Suezoled]

This is simply obvious to me, but the skeptics here are trying their utmost to avoid this conclusion

Even a rock is mainly empty space in between its molecules.

 

[lifegazer]

I could be mistaken, but my highly trained nasal receptors appear to have detected the delicate fragrance of my favourite perfume, Eau de Merde.

I don't mind constructive criticism. But I abhor moronic cynicism. Say something intelligent or stay out of my threads.

 

[lifegazer]

Even a rock is mainly empty space in between its molecules.

'Space' is not empty. Indeed, space is negative-energy.

 

[Jeff Corey]

I don't mind constructive criticism. But I abhor moronic cynicism. Say something intelligent or stay out of my threads.

Your Threads? What a concept.
And "Space is negative energy"?
What in Ed's name is that supposed to mean?

 

[Suezoled]

'Space' is not empty. Indeed, space is negative-energy.

Woo woo alarms going off! Everyone run for the exits!

 

[Suezoled]

I don't mind constructive criticism. But I abhor moronic cynicism. Say something intelligent or stay out of my threads.

Round 2!

Clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter
Clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter
Clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter
Clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter Clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter Clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter Clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter Clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter Clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter Clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter Clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter Clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter Clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter Clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter Clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter Clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter Clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter