Is existence complete?

[James_S_Saint]

@Certainly real

As far as I can see, this leaves us with only one coherent option: Acknowledge time as a dimension and acknowledge that this dimension is infinite. If we reject it as a dimension, we are faced with one of Kant’s antinomies regarding infinite time (infinity cannot, by definition, be completed by successive finite additions). So if the future is not in existence, then this logically implies that time is not infinite and this takes us to a more damning paradox.

Anything can be declared as a dimension. A dimension merely means that something is going to be measured on a linear scale. Time is the measure of relative change. One can (and should) choose to measure change on a linear scale. But don’t confuse the measure of change with the existence of a prior or future state. The word “time” has multiple meanings in English; “time of day”, “measurement of change”, “era in history”, “appropriate situation”. One must be careful when speaking of truth in English.

@Certainly real

But if we accept it as a dimension, then there are no paradoxes regarding time. This entails that the past, the future and the present, are all in existence.

I don’t think that it does mean that. You are conflating the existence of multiple states of the universe coexisting with a measure of the changing of the state. Those are two very different things. Time brings about the change in state. The changed state is the present. The next change in state is the future. Time is merely "how much changing is going on relative to a reference standard, ie “per second”. The degree of changing is a dimension called “time”. The changes that come about are not the “time” but rather the “era”. Only one era can be having affect and thus exist. All other eras are either past or future (or fantasy) and thus not having affect (not changing) and thus not existing (certainly not in the present).

@Certainly real

At what point in time or space a subject is within existence, does not take away from existence including the past, present and future in relation to that subject and existence always being/existing.

Then You must define what You mean when you say “it exists”, because you have included, for example, a past that currently has no affect at all upon present existence (realize that thoughts of the past have present affect, but not the past itself).

@Certainly real

B) Time is a measurement, not an property or existence (specifically, the measure of change).
C) We distinguish past and future from present by the fact that it does not currently exist.

Would this not lead to the above above paradox?

Not if you have understood what I have said.

@Certainly real

If we define existence as that which encompasses all possible worlds or that which encompasses all things, then we have no paradox in definition, right? What other definition is possible?

That somewhat depends on what you mean by “possible”; “logically possible”, “hopefully possible”, “statistically possible”, “legally possible”. But more importantly, what rationale is there in choosing such a definition? What decisions would be changed by the ontological definition that the future already exists? What does it help to know that? What purpose does such a definition serve?

One could declare that “existence” is whatever he imagines. Okay, that is a free choice. But what does it serve to say that? How is the “real” being distinguished from the “imagined” if both reference the truly existent?

Declared definitions should serve a coherent purpose, have a reason for the choice of one definition over another. And realize that it is merely a concept being chosen, not a reality being discovered. Truth is a chosen construct (organization of forms and relations) that reflects experience for the purpose of using the construct for decision making.

@Certainly real

Anything other than this, appears to lead to a load of paradoxes that lead the likes of Kant and Hume to reject the absoluteness of reason.

I’ll take that challenge. To me, Hume and Kant were, emm… “small minded”, but very few of that era were not.

I am a “rational ontologist”, one who forms truths into a coherent and useful understanding of the universe/reality. Using my “RM: Affectance Ontology”, I have explained why every law of physics is what it is (the reasoning behind the reality, the “metaphysics”) and even discovered new things and flaws in current physics (apparently due to their errors in constructing their ontology. Scientists make poor ontologists/metaphysicists).

Ref; Particles

[Certainly_real]

I lost my original reply to you because my browser closed =D> =D> :-&
So this reply is pretty short but contains what was most important in the previous reply. I think it all comes down to this:

Is it hypothetically possible for something to undergo 0 change? If yes, then you could have something that is stationary in time whilst time is still existent around this thing just like you could have something without any movement whilst the xyz axis are still existing around this unmoving thing.

Then You must define what You mean when you say “it exists”

Whatever exists, is in my opinion certainly a part of existence. In addition to this whatever is absurd, is surely outside of existence. Whilst I used to think that existence includes all hypothetical possibilities, I’m now undecided.

[James_S_Saint]

The physical universe IS the changing. So everything physical is either changing or exchanging, depending on how it is being identified. A sub-atomic particle is always exchanging the energy within it with the ambient energy around it, but it remains a cluster of noise the whole time. But its exact size and shape slightly varies constantly.

Everything physical is that way, exchanging its inner substance with the ambient and thus maintaining its identity for much longer periods. Concepts and principles never change except in name but aren’t considered physical.

[Certainly_real]

@James S Saint

The physical universe IS the changing. So everything physical is either changing or exchanging, depending on how it is being identified. A sub-atomic particle is always exchanging the energy within it with the ambient energy around it, but it remains a cluster of noise the whole time. But its exact size and shape slightly varies constantly.

Everything physical is that way, exchanging its inner substance with the ambient and thus maintaining its identity for much longer periods. Concepts and principles never change except in name but aren’t considered physical.

I think I’m going to shift my view of existence including all possibilities (as in it includes all hypothetically possible universes) to existence having the potential to include all things hypothetically possible. Given that existence has always been/existed and will always be/existent/existing, it is completely plausible that all hypothetically possible states of affair will come to pass.

You’ve expressed much about the physical in your last post but what about the mental? How do you place the non-physical in existence? Do you think existence is entirely corporeal, or incorporeal, or a combination of both?

I thank you for all the info you have provided by the way. They’ve been beneficial to me.