Why existence exists

[Ecmandu]

Non existence of all, to actually be itself, must also be the non existence of itself, which means that there is existence.

So someone may state that there is no identity in non existence… Well, than non identity cannot exist as part of the totality, and you are left with identity.

This is only the “global” solution for why existence exists, not why particular existents exist the way that they do.

Existence is self generating, no being can create or destroy it as a whole. Existence is self recursive, meaning that an aspect of globalization feeding back on its own concept allows for self awareness or sentience.

I noticed someone on these boards talking about the end being 2016, and mentioning lucifer and the Holy Spirit as binary code…

Considering that it’s impossible to be omnipotent and omniscient, I would be very surprised if someone had that proof. There are an infinite number of dimensions that could interfere with this in a multitude of ways, there is no top infinity.

[WW_III_ANGRY]

@Ecmandu

Non existence of all, to actually be itself, must also be the non existence of itself, which means that there is existence.

So someone may state that there is no identity in non existence… Well, than non identity cannot exist as part of the totality, and you are left with identity.

This is only the “global” solution for why existence exists, not why particular existents exist the way that they do.

Existence is self generating, no being can create or destroy it as a whole. Existence is self recursive, meaning that an aspect of globalization feeding back on its own concept allows for self awareness or sentience.

I noticed someone on these boards talking about the end being 2016, and mentioning lucifer and the Holy Spirit as binary code…

Considering that it’s impossible to be omnipotent and omniscient, I would be very surprised if someone had that proof. There are an infinite number of dimensions that could interfere with this in a multitude of ways, there is no top infinity.

First sentence, good

Second sentence, there is no totality in non existence, second sentence, bad.

3rd sentence, not good. Self generating? No. That seem to imply that its a process. Existence is or isn’t, if something exists then existence exists.

4th sentence… not interested

[Ecmandu]

@WW_III_ANGRY

@Ecmandu

Non existence of all, to actually be itself, must also be the non existence of itself, which means that there is existence.

So someone may state that there is no identity in non existence… Well, than non identity cannot exist as part of the totality, and you are left with identity.

This is only the “global” solution for why existence exists, not why particular existents exist the way that they do.

Existence is self generating, no being can create or destroy it as a whole. Existence is self recursive, meaning that an aspect of globalization feeding back on its own concept allows for self awareness or sentience.

I noticed someone on these boards talking about the end being 2016, and mentioning lucifer and the Holy Spirit as binary code…

Considering that it’s impossible to be omnipotent and omniscient, I would be very surprised if someone had that proof. There are an infinite number of dimensions that could interfere with this in a multitude of ways, there is no top infinity.

First sentence, good

Second sentence, there is no totality in non existence, second sentence, bad.

3rd sentence, not good. Self generating? No. That seem to imply that its a process. Existence is or isn’t, if something exists then existence exists.

4th sentence… not interested

There is no non totality either!! Second sentence good… Think it through.

[Amorphos]

Non existence of all, to actually be itself, must also be the non existence of itself, which means that there is existence.

Or, state/statelessness

There can be and is a nothing that is, not-a-thing. Its a question of cardinal and non-cardinal at root.

Infinite sets aside, there must be a level of existence where the infinite has no limits et al. Which would be an emptiness.

In the Nietzschean sense, this is the primary drive of reality imho.

[Ecmandu]

@Amorphos

Non existence of all, to actually be itself, must also be the non existence of itself, which means that there is existence.

Or, state/statelessness

There can be and is a nothing that is, not-a-thing. Its a question of cardinal and non-cardinal at root.

Infinite sets aside, there must be a level of existence where the infinite has no limits et al. Which would be an emptiness.

In the Nietzschean sense, this is the primary drive of reality imho.

It’s not really grasping fully the idea I presented here to submit the reply you did, but once you get it, it’s easy to repeat…

In infinity, there would also be infinite stasis necessarily built in… Reference for sentient beings for example.

[Arcturus_Descending]

Ecmandu,

Hi

Non existence of all, to actually be itself, must also be the non existence of itself, which means that there is existence.

That made absolutely no sense but then I’m not a philosopher. Can you explain it without being redundant?

That’s not the same as bad grammar - as in saying: I don’t have nothing which literally means I have something.

[Ecmandu]

@Arcturus Descending

Ecmandu,

Hi

Non existence of all, to actually be itself, must also be the non existence of itself, which means that there is existence.

That made absolutely no sense but then I’m not a philosopher. Can you explain it without being redundant?

That’s not the same as bad grammar - as in saying: I don’t have nothing which literally means I have something.

I’ll state it a different way, nothing at all lacks identity, so it can’t actually be nothing at all, just the lack of itself.

[Ultimate_Philosophy (Ultimate Philosophy 1001)]

@Ecmandu

Non existence of all, to actually be itself, must also be the non existence of itself, which means that there is existence.

Non-existence of non-existence does not mean that it’s opposite, exists. If there is no such thing as hot, it does not necessitate that there is a such thing as cold.

So someone may state that there is no identity in non existence… Well, than non identity cannot exist as part of the totality, and you are left with identity.

Non existence of identity does not equate that the totality or identity exists in the first place.

Existence is self generating, no being can create or destroy it as a whole. Existence is self recursive, meaning that an aspect of globalization feeding back on its own concept allows for self awareness or sentience.

You have zero proof of any of these statements.

[Orbie]

The premise ‘nothing lacks identity’ is flawed. There are some things which do lack identity. The intermediary statement is ok, but the conclusive conditional, that it’s not that identifiability is a function of selfhood, or it’s condition to selfhood, is not connectable to the premise.

Why? Because the identification of the premise is strictly definitainable, whereas selfhood entails more then just mere definitions.

Example: I can define things according to current usage, as say in, (pointing to some thing, let’s say a box) and identify it. However I can also point to a non identify able figure, and call it-whatever. There are plenty of on identify able and meaningless words, as there are things to which there may not exist an identifiable concept.

A deformed structural 3 dimensional thing, with many sides, angles, and juxtaposed here and here, may then simply be an object of inquiry, ‘what’s that’?

If an inquiry has to be made, we face an infinite reduction, because the most that can identify that thing, is- ‘it’s a thingowhamithcy’. That a thing is a thing is a thing, is not a description of an object.

Finally, if it’s claimed, that it’s lack of identification is merely an absence of its self implies it has a self , an I it’s self, meaning it has a transcendental existence, Being. Again, this self, is no validation of it’s self, since that implies another total reduction from being into nothingness, in the Sartrean sense. It’s identity is hidden, it is manifested only as a negation, which You originally pose in Your opening.

Negation does not equal an absence of it’s self, negation is only a logical possibility of presence.
Just because it’s logically possible to negate some thing, does not mean that it actually is, because:

It’s rather like this: if there was a thing , of which it could be claimed to exist, then it’s equally possible that that thing does not exist.

That is all Your premise necessarily states. The outflow into presence and absence as equally negate able. Or nihilizable, is not justified. Hence Your argument is vacuous, and dis associative.

[statiktech]

Nonexistence isn’t a ‘thing’ that could be rendered nonexistent. The same way nothing isn’t a ‘thing’. If you have nothing, no ‘things’, then nothing wouldn’t be included in the list of things you don’t have.

[Ecmandu]

@statiktech

Nonexistence isn’t a ‘thing’ that could be rendered nonexistent. The same way nothing isn’t a ‘thing’. If you have nothing, no ‘things’, then nothing wouldn’t be included in the list of things you

I understand your objection - nothing at all doesn’t exist, it never was and never will be…

Now do you see the point?

Contemplate that for a while… Maybe that wording will work for you.

[James_S_Saint]

The state of nonexistence isn’t reality merely because that would constitute infinite homogeneity, which is logically/mathematically impossible to ever be the state in even the smallest region.

[Orbie]

And most simply, the definition of existence/non existence have become differentiate only since the abating of faith by the onslaught of the enlightenment.
There was no doubt prior to Descartes, as a philosophical doctrine, and the ideal of God’s irrefutability, infallibility was not seriously entertained.
The difference between existence and non existence
Became a philosophical tour de force, resulting in the meaning of that difference ascribed only to the limits of language-use.

So, on all those levels, the idea of non-existence make no sense.

Therefore, the OP is axiomatically true. There seems no challenge.

[James_S_Saint]

@Orbie

And most simply, the definition of existence/non existence have become differentiate only since the abating of faith by the onslaught of the enlightenment.
There was no doubt prior to Descartes, as a philosophical doctrine, and the ideal of God’s irrefutability, infallibility was not seriously entertained.
The difference between existence and non existence
Became a philosophical tour de force, resulting in the meaning of that difference ascribed only to the limits of language-use.

So, on all those levels, the idea of non-existence make no sense.

Therefore, the OP is axiomatically true. There seems no challenge.

No. The pedantic language arguments are merely distraction and excuses. The fact that “no-thing” is not a “thing” is irrelevant to the entire issue. The word “is” means to exist, but that is irrelevant to the intent when someone says, “Why is there existence instead of nonexistence?” They merely mean to say, “Explain why there is existence.” It has nothing to do with semantics.

And the whole issue was raised merely to raise a contention to the idea of God. If there is not going to be a God, we have to come up with another excuse for existence.

[WW_III_ANGRY]

@James S Saint

@Orbie

And most simply, the definition of existence/non existence have become differentiate only since the abating of faith by the onslaught of the enlightenment.
There was no doubt prior to Descartes, as a philosophical doctrine, and the ideal of God’s irrefutability, infallibility was not seriously entertained.
The difference between existence and non existence
Became a philosophical tour de force, resulting in the meaning of that difference ascribed only to the limits of language-use.

So, on all those levels, the idea of non-existence make no sense.

Therefore, the OP is axiomatically true. There seems no challenge.

No. The pedantic language arguments are merely distraction and excuses. The fact that “no-thing” is not a “thing” is irrelevant to the entire issue. The word “is” means to exist, but that is irrelevant to the intent when someone says, “Why is there existence instead of nonexistence?” They merely mean to say, “Explain why there is existence.” It has nothing to do with semantics.

And the whole issue was raised merely to raise a contention to the idea of God. If there is not going to be a God, we have to come up with another excuse for existence.

God is irrelevant to existence existing or not. If God exists, god is part of existence. It is just another something that exists in the state of existence, or if it was the only thing that existed at one time in the state of existence, it’s still part of existence. There is no excuse for existence, there is no answer to why is there existence, just as for the religious believer, there is no answer as to why God exists if they believe that God exists.

[James_S_Saint]

@WW_III_ANGRY

God is irrelevant to existence existing or not. If God exists, god is part of existence. It is just another something that exists in the state of existence, or if it was the only thing that existed at one time in the state of existence, it’s still part of existence.

Not really because we are speaking of physical existence. God is a part of conceptual existence. The argument has always been that due to the concept of God (the concept itself, not merely people believing it) physical existence is present. That is actually true by definition until one starts playing around with the concept of God definition.

@WW_III_ANGRY

There is no excuse for existence, there is no answer to why is there existence

Not true. I have already given the reason for existence in several threads here (ref: The Absolute Impossibility of Nothingness - Ever ).

@WW_III_ANGRY

, just as for the religious believer, there is no answer as to why God exists if they believe that God exists.

True; “I am that I am”.

[WW_III_ANGRY]

@James S Saint

@WW_III_ANGRY

God is irrelevant to existence existing or not. If God exists, god is part of existence. It is just another something that exists in the state of existence, or if it was the only thing that existed at one time in the state of existence, it’s still part of existence.

Not really because we are speaking of physical existence. God is a part of conceptual existence. The argument has always been that due to the concept of God (the concept itself, not merely people believing it) physical existence is present. That is actually true by definition until one starts playing around with the concept of God definition.

@WW_III_ANGRY

There is no excuse for existence, there is no answer to why is there existence

Not true. I have already given the reason for existence in several threads here.

@WW_III_ANGRY

, just as for the religious believer, there is no answer as to why God exists if they believe that God exists.

True; “I am that I am”.

Existence doesn’t differentiate between physical and conceptual. If something exists, be it physical or conceptual, both, or either one, existence exists.

Whatever your reason that you provide for why existence exists is not true. Nothing can precede existence - and for there to be an answer to why existence must exist, there must be something preceding existence, such as the reason, the cause. But your differentiating existence to not include “God” because that is your belief, really doesn’t matter. You’re twisting the meaning of the words to suit your own personal beliefs on the matter. Even by your own definition of existence, I can say that God doesn’t exist (because he isn’t part of existence) and you would have to agree, or more than likely, experience some cognitive dissonance on the matter and attempt to word play yourself out of the situation all while not making any sense.

[James_S_Saint]

@WW_III_ANGRY

Existence doesn’t differentiate between physical and conceptual. If something exists, be it physical or conceptual, both, or either one, existence exists.

That is entirely up to us. People choose their ontology of existence. The ancients, and most more recent, accept the ontology of a physical realm and a separate conceptual realm. Everything within each realm affects anything else in that realm, but the two realms don’t affect each other (although many like to fantasize that they do; “devils or ghosts crossing into our world from theirs”).

@WW_III_ANGRY

Whatever your reason that you provide for why existence exists is not true.

Bullshit. Have you even bothered to read it?

@WW_III_ANGRY

Nothing can precede existence - and for there to be an answer to why existence must exist, there must be something preceding existence, such as the reason, the cause.

False.

The Absolute Impossibility of Nothingness - Ever

@James S Saint

Since this subject keeps coming up, I thought that I would polish this post up a bit to include the whole real number system and put it in its own thread.

Okay, now given that you have 10 cups with the random possibility of each cup having as many as 10 coins in it, what is the possibility that you have the same number of coins in all 10 cups?

Mathematically that would be b^10[/b] or 0.0000000001.

The state of nothingness and the state of absolute homogeneity are actually the same thing. If there is no distinction in affect at all in every point in space, there is no universe. Thus for a universe to exist, there must be distinction or variation in affect between the points in space. What is the possibility that every point in space is of the exact same value of PtA (potential-to-affect)?

Well, let’s define the term as the specific infinite series,
infA ≡ [1+1+1+…]

Just a single infinite line would give us infA^2 points on that line if you want to include all infinitesimal lengths, all “real numbers”. And assuming nothing is forcing any particular PtA value, each point on the line might have a value anywhere from infinitesimal to infinite, the range of that same infA^2 but for PtA.

So the possibility for every point on the line to have the same PtA value (given steps of 1 infinitesimal) would be;
Possibility of homogeneous line = (1/infA)^((infA)^2).

That is 1 infinitesimal reduced by itself infinitely an infinite number of times. And right there is the issue. Also in 3D space, you actually have the infinite real-number cube (to simplify from spherical) of;
Possibility of homogeneous space = (1/infA)^(infA^6)

Normally in mathematics if your number has reached 1 infinitesimal, it is accepted as zero and is certainly close enough to zero for all practical purposes but we are literally infinitely less than infinity less than 1 infinitesimal. For 3D space, we are looking at 1 infinitesimal times itself infinitely an infinite number of times, infinitely times an infinite number more times, and infinitely times an infinite number more times.

Given an infinite amount of time (an infinite timeline, another infA^2 of points in time) and with or without causality, the possibility of running across homogeneity of space is;
Possibility of homogeneity through all space = infA * (1/infA)^(infA^6)
Possibility of homogeneity through all time = (1/infA)^(infA^12)

With a possibility being that degree of infinitely small, not only can it never randomly end up homogeneous even through an infinite number of trials (an infinite time line, never getting up to even 1 infinitesimal possibility), but it can’t even be forced to be homogeneous. A force is an affect. If all affects are identical, the total affect is zero. What would be left in existence to force all points to be infinitely identical?

But if that isn’t good enough for you, realize that those calculations are based on stepped values of merely 1 infinitesimal using a standard of infA. In reality, each step would be as close to absolute zero as possible without actually being absolute zero using a standard of as close to absolute infinity as possible,
AbsInf ≡ highest possible number toward absolute infinity.

And then of course,
1/AbsInf = would be the lowest possible number or value.

Thus we have,
Possibility of homogeneity through all time = (1/AbsInf)^(Absinf^12)

Now we have truly absolute zero possibility because if we are already as close to absolute zero as possible with “1/AbsInf”, as soon as we multiply that by any fraction, we have breached absolute zero, impossibly small. And we have breached absolute zero by a factor of AbsInf^12 … well, well beyond absolute zero possibility of homogeneity.

Thus Absolute Homogeneity, “Nothingness”, is absolutely impossible.

@WW_III_ANGRY

But your differentiating existence to not include “God” because that is your belief, really doesn’t matter. You’re twisting the meaning of the words to suit your own personal beliefs on the matter.

It doesn’t have anything to do with my beliefs. It has to do with what those words have always meant to the people who generated them. THEIR ontology was of two realms of existence: physical/“mortal” and "conceptual/“spiritual”. It is all throughout their writings. You can look yourself.

[WW_III_ANGRY]

@James S Saint

@WW_III_ANGRY

Existence doesn’t differentiate between physical and conceptual. If something exists, be it physical or conceptual, both, or either one, existence exists.

That is entirely up to us. People choose their ontology of existence. The ancients, and most more recent, accept the ontology of a physical realm and a separate conceptual realm. Everything within each realm affects anything else in that realm, but the two realms don’t affect each other (although many like to fantasize that they do; “devils or ghosts crossing into our world from theirs”).

@WW_III_ANGRY

Whatever your reason that you provide for why existence exists is not true.

Bullshit. Have you even bothered to read it?

@WW_III_ANGRY

Nothing can precede existence - and for there to be an answer to why existence must exist, there must be something preceding existence, such as the reason, the cause.

False.

The Absolute Impossibility of Nothingness - Ever

@James S Saint

Since this subject keeps coming up, I thought that I would polish this post up a bit to include the whole real number system and put it in its own thread.

Okay, now given that you have 10 cups with the random possibility of each cup having as many as 10 coins in it, what is the possibility that you have the same number of coins in all 10 cups?

Mathematically that would be b^10[/b] or 0.0000000001.

The state of nothingness and the state of absolute homogeneity are actually the same thing. If there is no distinction in affect at all in every point in space, there is no universe. Thus for a universe to exist, there must be distinction or variation in affect between the points in space. What is the possibility that every point in space is of the exact same value of PtA (potential-to-affect)?

Well, let’s define the term as the specific infinite series,
infA ≡ [1+1+1+…]

Just a single infinite line would give us infA^2 points on that line if you want to include all infinitesimal lengths, all “real numbers”. And assuming nothing is forcing any particular PtA value, each point on the line might have a value anywhere from infinitesimal to infinite, the range of that same infA^2 but for PtA.

So the possibility for every point on the line to have the same PtA value (given steps of 1 infinitesimal) would be;
Possibility of homogeneous line = (1/infA)^((infA)^2).

That is 1 infinitesimal reduced by itself infinitely an infinite number of times. And right there is the issue. Also in 3D space, you actually have the infinite real-number cube (to simplify from spherical) of;
Possibility of homogeneous space = (1/infA)^(infA^6)

Normally in mathematics if your number has reached 1 infinitesimal, it is accepted as zero and is certainly close enough to zero for all practical purposes but we are literally infinitely less than infinity less than 1 infinitesimal. For 3D space, we are looking at 1 infinitesimal times itself infinitely an infinite number of times, infinitely times an infinite number more times, and infinitely times an infinite number more times.

Given an infinite amount of time (an infinite timeline, another infA^2 of points in time) and with or without causality, the possibility of running across homogeneity of space is;
Possibility of homogeneity through all space = infA * (1/infA)^(infA^6)
Possibility of homogeneity through all time = (1/infA)^(infA^12)

With a possibility being that degree of infinitely small, not only can it never randomly end up homogeneous even through an infinite number of trials (an infinite time line, never getting up to even 1 infinitesimal possibility), but it can’t even be forced to be homogeneous. A force is an affect. If all affects are identical, the total affect is zero. What would be left in existence to force all points to be infinitely identical?

But if that isn’t good enough for you, realize that those calculations are based on stepped values of merely 1 infinitesimal using a standard of infA. In reality, each step would be as close to absolute zero as possible without actually being absolute zero using a standard of as close to absolute infinity as possible,
AbsInf ≡ highest possible number toward absolute infinity.

And then of course,
1/AbsInf = would be the lowest possible number or value.

Thus we have,
Possibility of homogeneity through all time = (1/AbsInf)^(Absinf^12)

Now we have truly absolute zero possibility because if we are already as close to absolute zero as possible with “1/AbsInf”, as soon as we multiply that by any fraction, we have breached absolute zero, impossibly small. And we have breached absolute zero by a factor of AbsInf^12 … well, well beyond absolute zero possibility of homogeneity.

Thus Absolute Homogeneity, “Nothingness”, is absolutely impossible.

@WW_III_ANGRY

But your differentiating existence to not include “God” because that is your belief, really doesn’t matter. You’re twisting the meaning of the words to suit your own personal beliefs on the matter.

It doesn’t have anything to do with my beliefs. It has to do with what those words have always meant to the people who generated them. THEIR ontology was of two realms of existence: physical/“mortal” and "conceptual/“spiritual”. It is all throughout their writings. You can look yourself.

For some reason it seems you’re including “space” as outside of existence. Time as well. This still doesn’t provide an answer regardless, as to why existence exists. It probably answers “how existence exists”, but I disagree that you answer is correct anyways. Claiming its impossible for nothingness to be the state doesn’t answer the question why existence exists. And yes, no things, as in nothing, can precede existence in the sense that if something precedes existence, it too is existing. Therefore again, no reason as to why existence exists, because a reason would be part of existence itself. Existence is, or isn’t, we know it is. There is no answer as to why it exists, never will be, its logically impossible.

[statiktech]

I disagree James. Based on the OP, this seems to be entirely a language issue, even if the point he thinks he’s making may not be.