Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Where that came from? And that? And that?      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 2
Where that came from? And that? And that?Page 1 of 1    

What do you guys think?

I think we will never have proper answers until we can pose the proper questions, and I don't think the proper questions are often being posed.

Our abstactions are based on preconceived notions (assumptions) based on our perceptions. As a result, even our languages in such a way that they are limited in what concepts can be communicated at any sort of intuitive level.

Perhaps a better line of reasoning could be attempted by posing "nonsensical" questions that have no apparent correspondence to what we'd call reality.

What does it mean to "exist" (or "be")?
Can it only be contrasted with non-existence (i.e. a binary principle)?
Why?

My own belief in this regard is that existence is not of a binary nature, but lies in a probability continuum between zero and one (inclusively?)

So what does it mean to say that something 30% exists and 70% doesn't?

People used to tell me I wasn't "all there"…After working it out, I'll be damned if they weren't right!
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 4
Where that came from? And that? And that?
Posted: 9/2/2012 1:15:35 PM

the problem with zero is that it is defined by the absence of ‘something’ rather than having a description for itself.

If it was defined as anything but "nothing" (no-thing) then it would be "something" and therefore exist. I see no problem with it being defined as no-thing, or as I like to call it, the empty set.


To have nothing you must not only remove ‘dimensionalism/matter’ you must also remove…

…everything (thus making the set empty again)


a zero in a pure form cannot exist

This is part of the quandary of language itself that I was referring to. We are ill-equipped to describe nothingness for the very reason it has never been part of our experience. It can only be described metaphorically in terms of things which exist. "Zero" exists in mathematics (in fact its existence is essential for a lot of it). So I think it might be helpful to stop trying to describe non-existence using terms like "zero". Try using "content of the empty set" to describe it.
 Paul Overton
Joined: 8/20/2008
Msg: 5
view profile
History
Where that came from? And that? And that?
Posted: 9/2/2012 10:08:01 PM
You're using the word "it"to describe non- existence, this again falls short of non-existence.

How do i KNOW that i exist? If I'm wrong about my existence, then I must exist to be wrong. So either I'm right and I exist or I'm wrong and I exist. My existence is self-evident and an absolute truth.

How do I know non-existence does not exist? Either I'm right and non-existence does not exist or I'm wrong and non-existence does exist, thereby making it existence and infact not non-existence. Either way non-existence cannot exist.

Why cant there be two existences? The only thing which could seperate one existence from the other is non-existence, but we KNOW that non-existence does not exist. Therefore we are left w/ the indisputable fact that there is only ONE existence. And if non-existence is impossible then we KNOW that existence has and always will exist.

So using basic math: 0+0=0, there could never have been nothing and then been something. 1+0=1, it is an observable scientific fact that something must be added to cause change. Since we KNOW there is only ONE then we can never get 2 from the ONE.

We are left w/ the only solution: there is, has always been, and always will be only ONE. We are all made of the ONE and there is no seperation between us except for our perception. Our senses confuse our reason. Humans, stars, trees, water...... We are all made from the ONE
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 6
Where that came from? And that? And that?
Posted: 9/2/2012 10:40:17 PM

How do i KNOW that i exist?

You don't. Before that can be shown, there must be an adequate definition for "i" and for "exist."


My existence is self-evident and an absolute truth.

You have to make that ASSUMPTION of self-evidence. Even at that, you can't know it as an absolute truth.


How do I know non-existence does not exist? Either I'm right and non-existence does not exist or I'm wrong and non-existence does exist, thereby making it existence and infact not non-existence. Either way non-existence cannot exist.

Why can't there be regions or domains completely absent of anything that exists? Can you show that there are or aren't? If you can't prove one or the other case, then you can only hypothesize and can never make a provable claim one way or the other.

Why do you assume a binary principle in an attempt to prove unity?


using basic math: 0+0=0

Also 1+(-1)=0, so isn't it also fair to say that adding anti-existence to existence yields non-existence? How can we say there is no such thing as "anti-existence"?


We are left w/ the only solution…

…that a unique "solution" does not exist.
 Paul Overton
Joined: 8/20/2008
Msg: 7
view profile
History
Where that came from? And that? And that?
Posted: 9/2/2012 11:16:58 PM
Your are using symantecs to confuse the notion of existence. But notice the words you use to answer the question how do I know I exist. You answer that I DO not. You are proving my existence w/ your own sentence. The fact that you can state that I am doing some activity, in this case I'm not knowing that I exist. But I must exist to be able to not be aware of my existence. Again existence is an absolute truth. State the opposite of my arguement " existence DOES not exist". By stating this I prove that existence DOES exist because I'm saying that existence IS not existing. IT would have to exist to be in a state of non-existence.

You say that a clear definition of "I"and "existence" must be clarified, but if I begin to use words to define them you will want definitions for those defining words. But in your response you clearly understand the "form" of the word I because you refer to me as an existent being
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 8
Where that came from? And that? And that?
Posted: 9/3/2012 1:32:03 AM

Your are using semantics to confuse the notion of existence.

Correct…How can it be otherwise when language itself limits expression of thought?


existence is an absolute truth

That is a claim. You hold the burden of proof. If you cannot prove your claim, nobody is under any obligation to accept it as a true statement.


By stating this I prove that existence DOES exist

False…The statement is a premise and proves nothing.


You say that a clear definition of "I"and "existence" must be clarified, but if I begin to use words to define them you will want definitions for those defining words.

Correct.


in your response you clearly understand the "form" of the word I because you refer to me as an existent being

If the response referred to was in reference to the statement "How do I know that I exist?", then "in your response you clearly understand the 'form' of the word I because you refer to me as an existent being" is incorrect. Is it possible the response was misunderstood owing to erroneous assumptions?
 Paul Overton
Joined: 8/20/2008
Msg: 9
view profile
History
Where that came from? And that? And that?
Posted: 9/3/2012 6:36:16 AM
Yes it is very possible that I misinterpreted your use of the word I, very clever. However I have proven my case of existence and leave you w/ a testable algorithm that can be replicated over and over w/ the same result, otherwise known as scientific. If I mix the same amount of Na+ with the same amount of Cl- I will get salt every time. This is science.

You are very correct in your understanding of language, But this does not change the impossibility of non-existence. Notice that cold is the opposite of hot, cold has its own name and state of being seperate from hot. However when creating the idea of the opposite of existence we only add a "non" in front of the word. Which by we are not refererring to non-existence but the opposite of existence. We are still speaking of existence in a negative form.

Please apply the words this time. If non-existence DOES exist then it cannot be non-existence because it would exist. The name itself implies "non-existence". You said earlier that there could be places void of existence, but true absence of existence does not take up space. So no there can not be fields or dimensions of non-existence b/c they would not exist to be somewhere.

The only 2 answers to do I exist is yes or no. Yes i DO exist or no i DO not exist, in both i am DOING. This proves existence, there is no state in which I could be that I would be lacking in existence.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 10
Where that came from? And that? And that?
Posted: 9/3/2012 8:47:52 AM

I have proven my case of existence

How?


leave you w/ a testable algorithm that can be replicated over and over w/ the same result, otherwise known as scientific. If I mix the same amount of Na+ with the same amount of Cl- I will get salt every time. This is science.

Granted, but what has NaCl or science got to do with existence? Are they non-sequiturs?


You are very correct in your understanding of language, But this does not change the impossibility of non-existence.

Language is a separate domain than the physical, so you are quite correct that language has no influence on what we call reality, but until you can communicate a precise definition for "existence" as distinct from "non-existence" (the absence of existence) and show further that there are no incidences of non-existence (i.e. "holes" in spacetime say, which are absent ALL qualities of what could be called "existence"), AND show that the antithesis of existence, which could be called "anti-existence" (anti-photons?) cannot, then you cannot show that non-existence is impossible.

Look at it this way, logic itself relies on at minimum, a binary principle which includes the unary operator "not." Without resorting to operating with at least a language, which by necessity is at least binary, we can't prove anything that can be communicated as proof. How can we prove the thesis that the nature of existence itself is not binary (i.e. that there can be no absence of existence), when we have to concede at the outset that the language used, by its very nature doesn't correspond with the thesis and therefore can't serve to model it?


Please apply the words this time.

Why? Have I not sufficiently demonstrated the futility of the exercise?


The only 2 answers to do I exist is yes or no.

False; there are also "both", "maybe" and "partially", which may be equally valid.


Yes i DO exist or no i DO not exist, in both i am DOING.This proves existence, there is no state in which I could be that I would be lacking in existence.

The argument has gone full circle and you still haven't provided the necessary definitions for "i" and "exist." In the end, by using any language, the arguments ALWAYS boil down to the inadequacy of language to describe reality. If reality can't even be described, how can any supposition about it be proved? I submit that it can't.
Where that came from? And that? And that?
Posted: 9/9/2012 1:51:03 AM
OP - oh holy cow.
 Westley_Auryn
Joined: 8/6/2012
Msg: 13
Where that came from? And that? And that?
Posted: 9/11/2012 3:38:32 AM
http://bit.ly/TMPPvq
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EbY0vuNt-Q&t=16s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHWjlCaIrQo&t=42s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81CDHjHQxK8
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Where that came from? And that? And that?