Total Posts:43|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Everything that can exist must exist.

MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2012 4:30:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I actually formulated this philosophy on my own, and found this video from searching Youtube on solipsism. I thought it was interesting but I'm not sure if it has flaws. Discuss.

Transcript: "I contemplate the situation where nothing exists and then, there is us and the universe we perceive and I ask; How is it that something exists? Can it be that something can spring from nothing?

The glib answer from those of little imagination is to assert that there cannot be nothing, that where nothing exists there is still a god. I assert that that is a good answer for monkeys, not philosophers. It simply avoids the conundrum by refusing to ask how that god exists. Note that I do not refuse the notion that that which most would define as god might exist, I simply assert that one cannot avoid the question of how existence might exist by invoking the notion that god exists as such a god existing is contingent upon the existence of existence.

Obviously something exists. The assertion (I have heard often) that all is illusion misses the point that for such illusion itself to exist, there must be existence. Refusal to entertain the question as a valid question is simply either failure of imagination or fear of the question.

My philosophy suggests that it is not possible for existence to derive from non existence. For existence to derive there must be something for it to derive from and such a something is precluded from existing without the existence of existence. Therefor existence is not derivative. Given that existence cannot derive from nonexistence, it follows that there could not be a condition of nonexistence. There is no such condition of nonexistence. Nonexistence does not exist, ergo, everything exists. Existence exists because it can.

It follows that if anything can exist, it must exist."
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2012 4:42:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Skip everything else. It's preemptive setup.

At 5/17/2012 4:30:08 PM, MouthWash wrote:
My philosophy suggests that it is not possible for existence to derive from non existence. For existence to derive there must be something for it to derive from and such a something is precluded from existing without the existence of existence. Therefor existence is not derivative. Given that existence cannot derive from nonexistence, it follows that there could not be a condition of nonexistence. There is no such condition of nonexistence. Nonexistence does not exist, ergo, everything exists. Existence exists because it can.

This is all cool and all, but the following statement actually does not follow.

It follows that if anything can exist, it must exist."

Quick: (Disproof by counterexample)
A teacup can exist orbiting midway between Jupiter and Saturn, but it does not.

Longer: (Analysis of the non sequitur)
The set "everything" here is everything that exists, not everything that can exist. There are things that can exist that do not, at least at the moment.

However:
If we accept a purely deterministic universe, the question of "can exist" becomes equivalent to "has existed, will exist, or is existing," which is an interesting consideration, but still doesn't require for all things possible to be, for "must exist" concerns the present and not any future or past condition.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2012 4:52:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/17/2012 4:42:14 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Skip everything else. It's preemptive setup.

At 5/17/2012 4:30:08 PM, MouthWash wrote:
My philosophy suggests that it is not possible for existence to derive from non existence. For existence to derive there must be something for it to derive from and such a something is precluded from existing without the existence of existence. Therefor existence is not derivative. Given that existence cannot derive from nonexistence, it follows that there could not be a condition of nonexistence. There is no such condition of nonexistence. Nonexistence does not exist, ergo, everything exists. Existence exists because it can.

This is all cool and all, but the following statement actually does not follow.

It follows that if anything can exist, it must exist."

Quick: (Disproof by counterexample)
A teacup can exist orbiting midway between Jupiter and Saturn, but it does not.

Longer: (Analysis of the non sequitur)
The set "everything" here is everything that exists, not everything that can exist. There are things that can exist that do not, at least at the moment.

However:
If we accept a purely deterministic universe, the question of "can exist" becomes equivalent to "has existed, will exist, or is existing," which is an interesting consideration, but still doesn't require for all things possible to be, for "must exist" concerns the present and not any future or past condition.

What it means is that existence is infinite. Somewhere out there, that teacup is orbiting. You completely misinterpreted the statement.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2012 4:56:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/17/2012 4:52:14 PM, MouthWash wrote:
What it means is that existence is infinite. Somewhere out there, that teacup is orbiting. You completely misinterpreted the statement.

I would actually argue that my interpretation was more generous, but that would be a waste of our time.

As the amount of matter spreading out in the universe approaches infinity, the probability of a teacup existing in that situation within an exact replica of the Milky Way approaches 1, but the amount of matter is finite and there still could be a teacup in orbit.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2012 5:01:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/17/2012 4:56:07 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 5/17/2012 4:52:14 PM, MouthWash wrote:
What it means is that existence is infinite. Somewhere out there, that teacup is orbiting. You completely misinterpreted the statement.

I would actually argue that my interpretation was more generous, but that would be a waste of our time.

As the amount of matter spreading out in the universe approaches infinity, the probability of a teacup existing in that situation within an exact replica of the Milky Way approaches 1, but the amount of matter is finite and there still could be a teacup in orbit.

But what if part of the parameters for qualifying as "this Milky Way" include having a similar Milky Way in a certain orientation relative to it? It would have to exist in a separate dimension.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2012 5:02:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/17/2012 5:01:01 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 5/17/2012 4:56:07 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 5/17/2012 4:52:14 PM, MouthWash wrote:
What it means is that existence is infinite. Somewhere out there, that teacup is orbiting. You completely misinterpreted the statement.

I would actually argue that my interpretation was more generous, but that would be a waste of our time.

As the amount of matter spreading out in the universe approaches infinity, the probability of a teacup existing in that situation within an exact replica of the Milky Way approaches 1, but the amount of matter is finite and there still could be a teacup in orbit.

But what if part of the parameters for qualifying as "this Milky Way" include having a similar Milky Way in a certain orientation relative to it? It would have to exist in a separate dimension.

Well obviously it couldn't exist in the same position, but if the universe were infinitely large there would exist infinite identical copies with the same relative positions of its elements.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
tarkovsky
Posts: 212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2012 11:33:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/17/2012 4:30:08 PM, MouthWash wrote:

It follows that if anything can exist, it must exist."

This is a really vague statement really only meant for affect. The only valid interpretation is really pretty frivolous; something must be something.

The truth is that something that can exist need not exist concretely. Thoughts exist and I can think about things that don't exist concretely. If I thought about a unicorn it doesn't mean that unicorns must be 'out there in reality'. Just because something can exist doesn't mean it must exist objectively.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2012 2:16:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/17/2012 4:30:08 PM, MouthWash wrote:


I actually formulated this philosophy on my own, and found this video from searching Youtube on solipsism. I thought it was interesting but I'm not sure if it has flaws. Discuss.

Transcript: "I contemplate the situation where nothing exists and then, there is us and the universe we perceive and I ask; How is it that something exists? Can it be that something can spring from nothing?

The glib answer from those of little imagination is to assert that there cannot be nothing, that where nothing exists there is still a god. I assert that that is a good answer for monkeys, not philosophers. It simply avoids the conundrum by refusing to ask how that god exists. Note that I do not refuse the notion that that which most would define as god might exist, I simply assert that one cannot avoid the question of how existence might exist by invoking the notion that god exists as such a god existing is contingent upon the existence of existence.

Obviously something exists. The assertion (I have heard often) that all is illusion misses the point that for such illusion itself to exist, there must be existence. Refusal to entertain the question as a valid question is simply either failure of imagination or fear of the question.

My philosophy suggests that it is not possible for existence to derive from non existence. For existence to derive there must be something for it to derive from and such a something is precluded from existing without the existence of existence. Therefor existence is not derivative. Given that existence cannot derive from nonexistence, it follows that there could not be a condition of nonexistence. There is no such condition of nonexistence. Nonexistence does not exist, ergo, everything exists. Existence exists because it can.

It follows that if anything can exist, it must exist."


The main point of this argument is that something can not come from nothing. Both sides have no evidence, but it would be foolish to discount it instantly.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2012 6:07:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
This discussion has happened on DDO in the past. Obviously we know that existence exists (something does exist), but that does not prove that anything I experience exists or is real.
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2012 9:20:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I thought that this was going to be a rehash of the "it is possible that it is necessary that" canard, but this guy put forth a different, original (as far as I'm aware) argument. But it assumes that existence is a first-order property, a view which is now widely dismissed.
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2012 1:35:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/18/2012 9:20:37 AM, WriterDave wrote:
I thought that this was going to be a rehash of the "it is possible that it is necessary that" canard, but this guy put forth a different, original (as far as I'm aware) argument. But it assumes that existence is a first-order property, a view which is now widely dismissed.

What? Please elaborate on that statement.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
SeanMichael
Posts: 355
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2012 1:57:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
There is no begining, there has always been something. That someting created everything, I mean everything we know of. Even time itself, even space, it is beyond our comprehension to imagine before time or space. But it is widely accepted they are finite, they had a point of origin. The something that has aways been must be God.
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 12:18:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/19/2012 1:57:32 PM, SeanMichael wrote:
There is no begining, there has always been something. That someting created everything, I mean everything we know of. Even time itself, even space, it is beyond our comprehension to imagine before time or space. But it is widely accepted they are finite, they had a point of origin. The something that has aways been must be God.

I assume you did not read the OP.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 1:54:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/18/2012 6:07:02 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
This discussion has happened on DDO in the past.

The Fool: I have been arguing his exact argument for ever. Its part of the foundation of my philosophy.

Obviously we know that existence exists (something does exist), but that does not prove that anything I experience exists or is real.

The Fool: you experience proves that it exist, our could never have had one nore would you be able to talk about it. Because there would be nothing to talk about.

You are confusing, correlational knowledge. In that do my ideas correspond with information from our Sense data. (five senses) This is called verificationism ,which ask does there exist a correspondence between my mental idea and the physical world.

You you experience exist, or you couldnt have it.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 1:56:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/19/2012 1:57:32 PM, SeanMichael wrote:
There is no begining, there has always been something. That someting created everything, I mean everything we know of. Even time itself, even space, it is beyond our comprehension to imagine before time or space. But it is widely accepted they are finite, they had a point of origin. The something that has aways been must be God.

<(XD)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 2:02:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Exact argument!

F3. "Every existing thing has an explanation of its existence" is pure NONSENSE!

The Fool: Why? Because existence, exist!!!!!! Existence=Existence ‘How could what is perish? How could it have come to be? For if it came into being, it is not; nor is it if ever it is going to be. Thus coming into being is extinguished, and destruction unknown' (Parmenides of Elea 500 BCE)

Any possible explanation, cause or GOD would not exist. So it's impossible by any rationality that God exist for even he is no match for the contradiction of existence. When did faith suddenly not become good enough?

http://www.debate.org...
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 11:24:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Tautological and philosophically useless, like the saying "It's always in the last place you look".

The determination of whether or not something can exist stems from what we know about the universe, or in other words, things that we currently know to exist. The rules by which we make that determination are biased by what we already assume.

Your philosophy actually boils down to: Everything that exists, exists.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 11:49:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/29/2012 11:24:36 AM, Kleptin wrote:
Tautological and philosophically useless, like the saying "It's always in the last place you look".

The determination of whether or not something can exist stems from what we know about the universe, or in other words, things that we currently know to exist. The rules by which we make that determination are biased by what we already assume.

Your philosophy actually boils down to: Everything that exists, exists.

You didn't understand it. If existence is finite, why does it exist? The reason something exists is because it is the nature of existence to exist.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2012 8:00:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/29/2012 11:49:55 AM, MouthWash wrote:
At 5/29/2012 11:24:36 AM, Kleptin wrote:
Tautological and philosophically useless, like the saying "It's always in the last place you look".

The determination of whether or not something can exist stems from what we know about the universe, or in other words, things that we currently know to exist. The rules by which we make that determination are biased by what we already assume.

Your philosophy actually boils down to: Everything that exists, exists.

You didn't understand it. If existence is finite, why does it exist? The reason something exists is because it is the nature of existence to exist.

And what, pray tell, serves as your basis of determining something's nature, be it the nature of a person, place, object, or existence itself?
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2012 10:56:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/30/2012 8:00:54 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 5/29/2012 11:49:55 AM, MouthWash wrote:
At 5/29/2012 11:24:36 AM, Kleptin wrote:
Tautological and philosophically useless, like the saying "It's always in the last place you look".

The determination of whether or not something can exist stems from what we know about the universe, or in other words, things that we currently know to exist. The rules by which we make that determination are biased by what we already assume.

Your philosophy actually boils down to: Everything that exists, exists.

You didn't understand it. If existence is finite, why does it exist? The reason something exists is because it is the nature of existence to exist.

And what, pray tell, serves as your basis of determining something's nature, be it the nature of a person, place, object, or existence itself?

The only sort of nature I am attempting to demonstrate of existence is that it must exist. It has two choices (a) existence, or (b) nonexistence. If it is finite, that means that certain possibilities must not exist.

But why would it be half-way? Why would certain things exist, but not others? If existence is infinite, then that solves the problem, because it proves that it is the nature of existence to exist.

The prosaic fact that something exists single-handedly defeats both the pragmatist and the cynic.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
opposites
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 12:29:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The only things which exist are those things which were created by the opposite of nothing. Nothing exists and everything exists. Nothing cannot exist without something, and something cannot exist without nothing. Nothing is the absence of everything. Everything is those things which exist. I do not believe they are true opposites, but necessary opposites. They are opposites, like two halves of the same coin. The coin cannot exist without the front and the back. The coin is not an example of a true opposite, you do not have to see the right side of Washington's head for the back of the quarter to be the front's opposite. A true opposite example would be up and down, or a positive charge verses a negative charge. No particle can exist without following the law of opposites. It must have an inside and an outside, or a front and a back, or a left side and a right, top and bottom, etc.
Either everything always existed or it was created. It did not appear from nothing. Outward universal expansion suggests a beginning, and subsequently, an end. Nothing does exist otherwise everything would extend for infinity, which expansion from one point rules out, as the space around the big bang or creation point, prior to, wouldn't contain anything and would therefore be full of nothing.
We know that in some places nothing exists, and in others, things do exist. We know that we exist and that we have self-awareness. I personally conclude that the true opposite of nothing was what created the necessary opposite (everything). I believe there has always been nothing and a self-aware being who realized it, and had the ability to create all the things we know of as everything.
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 12:36:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/31/2012 12:29:41 AM, opposites wrote:
The only things which exist are those things which were created by the opposite of nothing. Nothing exists and everything exists. Nothing cannot exist without something, and something cannot exist without nothing. Nothing is the absence of everything. Everything is those things which exist. I do not believe they are true opposites, but necessary opposites. They are opposites, like two halves of the same coin. The coin cannot exist without the front and the back. The coin is not an example of a true opposite, you do not have to see the right side of Washington's head for the back of the quarter to be the front's opposite. A true opposite example would be up and down, or a positive charge verses a negative charge. No particle can exist without following the law of opposites. It must have an inside and an outside, or a front and a back, or a left side and a right, top and bottom, etc.
Either everything always existed or it was created. It did not appear from nothing. Outward universal expansion suggests a beginning, and subsequently, an end. Nothing does exist otherwise everything would extend for infinity, which expansion from one point rules out, as the space around the big bang or creation point, prior to, wouldn't contain anything and would therefore be full of nothing.
We know that in some places nothing exists, and in others, things do exist. We know that we exist and that we have self-awareness. I personally conclude that the true opposite of nothing was what created the necessary opposite (everything). I believe there has always been nothing and a self-aware being who realized it, and had the ability to create all the things we know of as everything.

Have you ever considered therapy?
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
elvroin_vonn_trazem
Posts: 99
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 4:53:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Shortly after the Big Bang, most everything that could exist certainly did not exist. Nowadays, roughly 14 billion years later, lots of things that could exist do. But everything? I doubt it.

I skimmed the previous postings on this Thread, and a few people foolishly stated that things can only begin to exist as a result of some sort of Creation, and that is wrong. Not only is it wrong, we have Scientific Proof it is wrong.

And now I need to explain that, by beginning at the beginning. It is said that The Most Fundamental Philosophical Question is: "Why is there Something, and not Nothing?" (Note even God would qualify as Something.)

There is a way to answer that Question, and it involves constructing a scenario and asking another Question: "Suppose there is indeed only Nothing. What is there to prevent Something from beginning to exist? Nothing!"

In the science of Quantum Mechanics, we have discovered that at the most fundamental level of space-time, particles of matter and energy are spontaneously popping into existence, persisting for tiny fractions of a second, and then vanishing again. Everywhere, and all the time, and totally randomly. Do you see how this "fits" with the Answer to that Most Fundamental Philosophical Question?

However, the phenomenon led Einstein to claim, "God does not play dice with the Universe." He thought that there had to exist some sort of underlying order, such that the observed randomness was merely an artifact. But Einstein was wrong. Physicists figured out ways to prove whether or not that underlying order was really there. And experiments were devised to test it.

Look up "Bell Inequality Experiments" some time. The results of EVERY such experiment verifies the utter randomness at the foundation of physical reality, and proves Einstein was mistaken.

Personally, I think God likes randomness. Have the detractors ever considered what Eternal Life MEANS? Randomness can never be boringly predictable!
Don't tell me God is smart, and then describe to me the actions of a moron. A truly smart God is not going to do things that way!
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 8:20:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/30/2012 10:56:26 PM, MouthWash wrote:
The only sort of nature I am attempting to demonstrate of existence is that it must exist. It has two choices (a) existence, or (b) nonexistence. If it is finite, that means that certain possibilities must not exist.

You cannot demonstrate the nature of something that does not exist. To say that "existence" has a nature at all (demonstrable or otherwise) is quite a feat, because you somehow manage to bastardize philosophy, science, and the English language all at once.

How can you rationalize the notion of existence having a choice whether to exist or not? You're just deriving faulty, pseudophilosophical notions from irrational semantics.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 8:21:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Perhaps it would help if you set definitions to your terms. Please start with the following:

Existence (noun)
Exist (verb)
Nonexistence
Nature
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 1:09:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
In The HitchHiker's Guide the concept is played with a bit using the "improbability drive," I believe it is called. At one point a whale suddenly appears in the upper atmosphere of a planet and falls to its death. In a sense that really cannot happen, but in another sense that isn't completely impossible, since a random gathering of atoms could hypothetically create a whale. So is there an occurence somewhere in time and space where a whale suddenly forms in the sky?

I posted a thread about mathematics a year or so ago about googols and beavers and the like. It would seem to me that there is only one relevant factor, and that is just how much "stuff" there is out there. It's reasonable to assume our universe is not that large, but it's not reasonable to assume that there still isn't more to reality than what we can detect indirectly at the moment. If there is a whole lot more to existence, then all this extra time and space would effectively allow infinite scenarios. In fact the most probable explanation for the existence of life is that there was just so many chances for it to occur that it eventually did.

What if there were a googolplex universes? Is there anything at all that wouldn't have happened?
Rob
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 3:53:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/31/2012 8:20:03 AM, Kleptin wrote:
You cannot demonstrate the nature of something that does not exist.

Yes, I can. It's nature is that it doesn't exist.

To say that "existence" has a nature at all (demonstrable or otherwise) is quite a feat, because you somehow manage to bastardize philosophy, science, and the English language all at once.

Existence's nature is to exist. I'm not seeing what's so hard about this.

How can you rationalize the notion of existence having a choice whether to exist or not?

I just did. Could you present a third alternative?

Perhaps it would help if you set definitions to your terms. Please start with the following:
Existence (noun)
Exist (verb)
Nonexistence
Nature

Existence: All that exists.

Exist: Having objective reality or being.

Nonexistence: The state of not existing.

I think the root of your misunderstanding may stem from my use of the word 'nature.' I am trying to say that it is not possible for existence to derive from nonexistence. Do you disagree with that statement?
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 3:55:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/31/2012 1:09:48 PM, Lasagna wrote:
What if there were a googolplex universes? Is there anything at all that wouldn't have happened?

Yes, there would. Infinite possibilities cannot be crammed into finite circumstances.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 6:24:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/31/2012 3:53:57 PM, MouthWash wrote:
Existence: All that exists.
Exist: Having objective reality or being.
Nonexistence: The state of not existing.

I think the root of your misunderstanding may stem from my use of the word 'nature.' I am trying to say that it is not possible for existence to derive from nonexistence. Do you disagree with that statement?

I'm not concerned with your attempt to prove that existence can derive from nonexistence. I'm concerned with your notion that everything that can exist must exist, as well as the inherent flaws with the way you handle the notions of nonexistence semantically. I have prepared a very long response to the rest of your post, but I see no reason to provide it if you are intent merely on trying to prove that existence cannot come from nonexistence.

I still, however, have a problem with you defining nonexistence as a state.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.