Anything that exist, consist of the information about it self.
To be confirmed as something existing, something else has to register the information.
If there is no information of it, there is nothing existing.
Not in this world. While things are what we percieve them to be, that does not mean they are not, if not percieved. If it’s information about itself then could it not percieve itself without something else existing to register the information?
Plus, I think you need to come up with some definitions of your terms. For instance, you can answer the question about “If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?” if you first define 1. forest (The National Wildlife Federation defines it as more than trees) 2. “no one” (is that people or animals or ??? 3. “hear” (is that a perception of sound (see #4) or vibration) and 4. “sound” (is that vibration whether sensed audibly or not, or ???
So, what is “exist” and what is “information” and what is “self” and what is “something else” and what is “register” and finally, what is “nothing.” Especially “nothing existing.” There is a whole thread on that, by the way.
Forget humans. I didn’t say anything about humans. What do you mean by “registering” if not perception by something other than it? And that goes to my question about registering with itself as opposed to “else.” These are your words (and the others I asked about). I’m just trying to get your meaning of terms before tying to offer up an opinion.
Now you say ‘existing’s’ ineractions with it’s ‘surroundings’ but I’m not getting it still. "Existing’s’ as in it is a thing itself?
Something existing would be something with a presence, the information is the description of the self, the information would be received and confirmed by something else(whatever), verifying the presence of the existing.
I disagree molok. Many things exist that are not known. I do not know what is inside my watch, but it’s all still there. Better yet, there are thousands of planets in existance that no living life form has ever dreamed of. Things can exist without perception.
Anything that exists may consist of the information about itself; but it may also consist of more than information. Some things are greater than the sum of their parts, or greater than the information about themselves. UNLESS you are defining “information/description†to include all that could be registered by an else that registers comprehensively. But if you do that, the question then becomes, what is the nature of that which registers? Is it registering all that can be registered, or only part? If there is no limit, or we don’t care and we are merely talking about verifying the presence but not registering the nature of it, then I think you may be right. But if the description of the self needs to be registered accurately then you may not be right.
On the other hand, I don’t understand why a thing can’t be, even if it doesn’t register with anything else. For instance, does infinity need to register with something (i.e. relative parts of itself) to be? For it can’t really register with anything other than parts of itself. The only other thing besides it, or parts of it, is nothing and that does not exist so it couldn’t register infinity.
Hell, forget infinity. If there was a widget and nothing to register it’s existence, why can’t it still be? I don’t get it. But it’s the end of the day and my brain is slowing down on me.
If every detail of information is required then the answer to your question is no. Because not every detail could be registered by something else. Something else could register mass, wieght, volume, etc. but there would be alot of information inside the it that could not be registered by anything but itself. Also, the registree would have to register color which requires light and a receptor that could percieve.
Infinity does exist, by the way, but as I said, forget about it since it’s not needed to make the case that something could exist without registering with something else.
As my second post up asked, though, it seems you are saying existence is a thing in and of itself, without the necessity of having anything other than itself so you question answers itself. If we aren’t talking about “things” like concepts, widgets, etc. and it we are saying that existence itself is a thing, then it exists whether registered or not.
Well, I still don’t know whats going on here, and I can’t tell if you are being sarcastic or genuine with the thanks, but that’s of no moment. I guess I would like to know why you are asking. Just curious or are you having an argument with someone or ? Did anything make sense? Rephrase your opinion unless it changed based upon everyones responses and then tell us what your conclusion is.
What do YOU think about all this? You know more about what you were/are thinking than anyone.
I dont disagree with what you are saying, but a question comes to mind. Since something can exist only within itself, can it become by itself? Or is a something else` necessary for the becoming of something?