Existence

[Hitta]

How do you explain our existence when everything contradicts itself? Do we really exist? There are 6.6 billion people on this planet. Am I the only one that has a perspective? Are you the only one that has a perspective? Am I a figment of someone elses imagination? I have felt at times like the world is just a dream. Maybe it is? Is there anyway to really know? Is there an absolute truth? Where do we go when we die? Do we just seize to exist? This scares the living hell out of me. We didn't exist supposedly before our births, what was that like? Everything is a paradox. How can time exist forever? How can time end? Everything is so frightening.

[Elro]

Dude, you need to chill out.

How do you explain our existence when everything contradicts itself?

What are you referring to when you say everything contradicts itself?

Do we really exist?

Maybe. Does it matter? No offense, because you aren't the only one to ask something like this (I've even asked it, but jokingly or for conversational purposes), but this strikes me as a stupid question and I can't exactly explain why. If we don't exist... ???? What do you mean by exist? What are we experiencing if we don't exist, and who are "we" that are experiencing it?

There are 6.6 billion people on this planet. Am I the only one that has a perspective? Are you the only one that has a perspective? Am I a figment of someone elses imagination?

Maybe. Probably not. I'm the only one I can vouch for, though, so if that's the case you may be a figment of mine.

Actually, this reminds me of an interesting concept, the whole "quantum suicide" thing, where there's a bunch of parallel universes and every time you die you pop out of that one and into one where you don't die, so you live the longest life possible. So MAYBE this idea has some plausibility - right now, this would be my universe, and you're not actually 100% in it like I am, but you do have your own parallel universe or something. Of course, I see no reason to believe that, but it's not impossible.

Even taking the whole zombies approach, people SEEM to have minds of their own like us (/me?), and so you could guess that it's more likely than not that they do (say, to be conservative, 51% that they do). That means for every person there's a 49% chance that they don't have a perspective. (I haven't studied statistics so what I'm about to do may be off, but it makes sense to me.) Now what are the chances that out of two people, neither aren't? There's the 49% from the first, and then out of that 49%, 49% chance of the other, so a 24.01% chance if my math is right. Out of three, 49% chance out of that 24.01% chance: 11.7649%. It seems the chances of n people all being without perspectives is .49^n x 100%, so .49^6599999999x100% approximately equals 0% (my calculator won't even keep track of that low a number). So, my conclusion is that it's not very likely. (That's not a very good argument, but potentially convincing anyway!)

I have felt at times like the world is just a dream. Maybe it is? Is there anyway to really know?

Try screaming really, really loudly. If you don't wake up, repeat until you lose consciousness. Then maybe you'll dream.
In my opinion, there's no real way to know. We could all be in the Matrix or some sort, and have second-level dreams here but not truly know what reality is. We're already sort of limited to our senses; there's reason to believe that there's a LOT going on our bodies aren't equipped to detect. And we can never really be sure that we've finally found a truth (that isn't self-evident). It's sort of like believing in God - unless he shows himself, we probably won't prove his existence, but some people just have faith that he exists. And others not.

Is there an absolute truth?

What do you mean?

Where do we go when we die? Do we just seize to exist?

Well, no. We get buried, you know that. And then the maggots come.

But seriously, whether or not there's an afterlife, you're probably not going to care what happens to your earthly form at that point.

This scares the living hell out of me.

Why?

We didn't exist supposedly before our births, what was that like?

Well, technically we did; we existed as sperm and eggs. Talk about a bipolar personality. Our individual experience didn't start until the two came together (for most of us). As for whether our personalities popped into the zygote (is that what it's called?) or emerged from it, that's kind of up to your individual beliefs. I don't personally remember what it's like, though.

Everything is a paradox.

Is it?

How can time exist forever? How can time end?

I'm not sure, but I think the key here is to look at what "forever" and "end" mean - both involve references to time, so if time didn't exist, they would cease to be defined. (Tricky, tricky: "cease" involves a reference to time too. Dammit. Basically it's hard to wrap one's mind around.)

Everything is so frightening.

It doesn't have to be. It's really a cool world, if you just relax a little and enjoy the mystery. Just think of how boring it would be otherwise.

[Drommel]

Stop watching "The Twilight Zone."

[KSpin]

I've had these thoughts but at least I don't try to frighten other people with them. Often I believe that ignorance is bliss.

[ScarlettLux]

Yeah.. I don't think you're crazy for thinking these things, hitta. People who *don't* think about them are just stupid -- and I agree too that ignorance is bliss because when I was about 7, I started freaking out mentally because I started questioning and questioning the exact things you did. Mainly the fact that I am only real and existent in my own mind, therefore how do I even know anyone else exists like I do? Do they really have the same consciousness I have? I can never know, maybe this whole world is just a trick that some divine force is playing on me. It REALLY scared me, I started getting very anxious and all.. the only way I finally explained it for myself is the whole parallel dimension thing. I just told myself -- yes, okay, everyone is real, but it's like their minds are just in a different dimension and they still do exist. Yeah, I was a paranoid 7 year old.

I dunno, and now I just don't like to think about it because I just take it all in and enjoy life.. that is what most people do and I suppose why noone really cares.

[Creepy-bg]

Yeah.. I don't think you're crazy for thinking these things, hitta. People who *don't* think about them are just stupid -- and I agree too that ignorance is bliss because when I was about 7, I started freaking out mentally because I started questioning and questioning the exact things you did. Mainly the fact that I am only real and existent in my own mind, therefore how do I even know anyone else exists like I do? Do they really have the same consciousness I have? I can never know, maybe this whole world is just a trick that some divine force is playing on me. It REALLY scared me, I started getting very anxious and all.. the only way I finally explained it for myself is the whole parallel dimension thing. I just told myself -- yes, okay, everyone is real, but it's like their minds are just in a different dimension and they still do exist. Yeah, I was a paranoid 7 year old.

I dunno, and now I just don't like to think about it because I just take it all in and enjoy life.. that is what most people do and I suppose why noone really cares.

lol I used to think the same thing when I was a kid (that everything I was experiences was some devine trick being played on me) It didn't scare me though at all. It was kind of empowering and an ego-boost. I was terrafied though at the thought that maybe someday gravity would reverse and then I'd be stuck in my house because if I went outside I'd fall into the sky forever and ever... lol so I guess I was sort of paranoid too

[Drommel]

See Solipsism.

[MysticSonic]

"How do you explain our existence when everything contradicts itself?"

If two things exist that can't possibly exist at the same instance, then one of them doesn't exist. Nothing that contradicts another thing's existence can exist at the same time as that particular thing.

"Do we really exist?"

Cogito, ergo sum. I think therefore I am. Therefore, it is undeniable that _I_ exist, whatever this "I" might be.

"There are 6.6 billion people on this planet. Am I the only one that has a perspective?"

No, I had this nihilistic perspective when I was about 15 or so, convinced that neither I, nor reality existed in any sort meaningful manner.

"Am I a figment of someone elses imagination?"

Perhaps, but being a figment, wouldn't you exist? Existence is existence is existence. The cause of your existence is unnecessary to determine if you're merely trying to verify whether or not you exist.

"I have felt at times like the world is just a dream. Maybe it is? Is there anyway to really know?"

It may be a dream and it may not be. The whole issue of the matter, though, is that at the moment, you are dealing with a particular perspective which mandates that this is what reality appears like to you; the potential "dream" in which you are living is, whether you like or not, your current reality, and the one that you must become comfortable in dealing with.

"Is there an absolute truth?"

Absolute truths are created from the well of our mind and from it so becomes truth. Don't be afraid of your own ability to know truth, to find the truths within you.

"Where do we go when we die? Do we just seize to exist?"

Our existence after this time is nothing that we can know beyond our various intuitions of what it might be. A position you can only discover for yourself, you will have to learn to handle the uncertainty and anxiety that precedes a certainty that you may very well never deal with. Such is a facet of all humanity, the task of deciding for one's self such truths as the meaning of one's life and the existence that follows death

"This scares the living hell out of me. We didn't exist supposedly before our births, what was that like?"

If such is your view, then your existence was nothingness, most akin though perhaps not identical to a state of unconsciousness, like dreaming a dream which we have no recollection of---a state of complete unawareness, a state in which you feel nothing.

"Everything is a paradox. How can time exist forever? How can time end?"

Time may or may not exist forever, and a question such as this(what is unknowable with our current knowledge set) is simply one you must come to a conclusion on based on how you feel. If time exists forever, then it will due so by the laws which govern this particular reality. If it ends, it will end by following the same rule, that it must follow rules, and end using a different set of rules than a continual existence would have used.

"Everything is so frightening."

Stop being so afraid of no-truth and you will find that lack of truths is a condition we all have to deal with.

[Not A Communist Shill]

"How do you explain our existence when everything contradicts itself?"

If two things exist that can't possibly exist at the same instance, then one of them doesn't exist. Nothing that contradicts another thing's existence can exist at the same time as that particular thing.

If there is no possible test for existence, then you can't prove the existence of one thing over the other just because the first thing is 'here', and the second thing isn't - it might be true that an object exists without the other, but you could never prove such a statement, and just because something is 'here' doesn't mean that it exists. Even if there were two things that couldn't possibly exist at the same instance, it is still possible that neither of them exist.

[FDG]

By definition of contradiction, there are no contradictions in the real world.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Everything that exists has no contradiction, because the contradiction obviously wouldn't exist. But you can have contradicting (i.e. diametric) ideas etc.

[MysticSonic]

"If there is no possible test for existence, then you can't prove the existence of one thing over the other just because the first thing is 'here', and the second thing isn't - it might be true that an object exists without the other, but you could never prove such a statement, and just because something is 'here' doesn't mean that it exists. Even if there were two things that couldn't possibly exist at the same instance, it is still possible that neither of them exist."

FDG summarily states my part of my point: that there are no contradictions in the real world, hence negating the fact that the existence is riddled with contradictions, which, in light of this, means that there exists only paradox(by this, I mean a statement which appears contradictory but in reality must be thought through thoroughly in order to be resolved.)

[Creepy-bg]

this is one of instances where logic seems to produce nothing but bullshit. Of course I exhist and you exhist and reality exhists... I'm looking at it. It's right in front of me. It exhists... end of argument

[Not A Communist Shill]

If there are no contradictions in the 'real' world, is that proof of existence? You can't prove something exists simply because you haven't found a contradiction - there is no difference between existence and non-existence in practice. Its possible we don't exist and yet everything could be non-contradictory by definition. Two objects or statements can be non-contradictory even if they don't exist.

[FDG]

If there are no contradictions in the 'real' world, is that proof of existence? You can't prove something exists simply because you haven't found a contradiction - there is no difference between existence and non-existence in practice. Its possible we don't exist and yet everything could be non-contradictory by definition. Two objects or statements can be non-contradictory even if they don't exist.

By definition of existence, we cannot non-exist and be here writing. Alternatively, you can change the meaning of existence and non-existence, but then we would be clearly talking about the same thing under a different light.

[MysticSonic]

Cogito ergo sum?

[Not A Communist Shill]

There is no difference between a non-existent FDG and a existent FDG, apart from the fact one exists and the other doesn't. You exist because you say you exist, but it's hardly a convincing argument - I conceive both FDGs saying the same thing. I don't think a dictionary is going to tell you whether you exist or not, but it will tell you what is meant by the word 'exist'.

[MysticSonic]

There's actually a whole slew of differences between a non-existent FDG and an existent FDG. A non-existent FDG is incapable of arguing with you as he is at the moment, and is also incapable of thinking of his argument. He is, in fact, incapable of doing anything besides not existing, which means he isn't capable of anything at all. To speak of a non-existent FDG is to speak of nothing.

[FDG]

There is no difference between a non-existent FDG and a existent FDG, apart from the fact one exists and the other doesn't. You exist because you say you exist, but it's hardly a convincing argument - I conceive both FDGs saying the same thing. I don't think a dictionary is going to tell you whether you exist or not, but it will tell you what is meant by the word 'exist'.

What do you think it is meant? If it's something different, we can agree to the fact that we're thinking about the same thing just with different words. This is the only logically conceivable option. If you conceive them to be both true at the same moment, either your definitions are incorrect, or your logic is flawed.

[Not A Communist Shill]

There's actually a whole slew of differences between a non-existent FDG and an existent FDG. A non-existent FDG is incapable of arguing with you as he is at the moment, and is also incapable of thinking of his argument. He is, in fact, incapable of doing anything besides not existing, which means he isn't capable of anything at all. To speak of a non-existent FDG is to speak of nothing.

But, by defintion the difference between non-existence and existence is that existent things exist - otherwise, there are no differences between an existent object and a non-existent object - they can both do exactly the same things.

define:existence
# being: the state or fact of existing; "a point of view gradually coming into being"; "laws in existence for centuries"
# universe: everything that exists anywhere; "they study the evolution of the universe"; "the biggest tree in existence"

existence is everything that exists anywhere in the universe, or the state of existing - this does not prove that you exist.

[FDG]

There's actually a whole slew of differences between a non-existent FDG and an existent FDG. A non-existent FDG is incapable of arguing with you as he is at the moment, and is also incapable of thinking of his argument. He is, in fact, incapable of doing anything besides not existing, which means he isn't capable of anything at all. To speak of a non-existent FDG is to speak of nothing.

But, by defintion the difference between non-existence and existence is that existent things exist - otherwise, there are no differences between an existent object and a non-existent object - they can both do exactly the same things.

You clearly are talking shit now

[Not A Communist Shill]

There's actually a whole slew of differences between a non-existent FDG and an existent FDG. A non-existent FDG is incapable of arguing with you as he is at the moment, and is also incapable of thinking of his argument. He is, in fact, incapable of doing anything besides not existing, which means he isn't capable of anything at all. To speak of a non-existent FDG is to speak of nothing.

But, by defintion the difference between non-existence and existence is that existent things exist - otherwise, there are no differences between an existent object and a non-existent object - they can both do exactly the same things.

You clearly are talking shit now

Ah, but am I clearly talking shit in reality?

[Not A Communist Shill]

Whether something exists or not doesn't change the other properties of the object, otherwise it would cease to be that object. You can't say a non-existent chocolate bar has no chocolate, because then it wouldn't be a chocolate bar - the question of whether an object exists is detached from the properties of the object. You can't make something exist or not exist by making existence or non-existence one of its properties - e.g. some people say 'God exists out of necessity, therefore God exists' - this is obviously a flawed argument, because God can only 'necessarily exist' if he exists in the first place - you can't wish your self into being simply because you believe yourself to be here.

You may 'think, therefore I am', but both existent and non-existent things can do that - it's nice to be certain of a thought at a particular instance in time, but it doesn't automatically make you exist in reality - whatever that means. You can't compare an existent thing to a non-existent thing to assess their differences, so how do you know that you exist?

[FDG]

A non-existant object cannot interact with reality, man. Please come back here to the planet earth.

[Not A Communist Shill]

A existent object cannot interact with non-reality, man - so what's your point?

When Descartes said 'I think, therefore I am' - he used this as an example of the only thing you can be certain of knowing at any one moment. But, in any one moment of thought - your thought is detached - you cannot test cause-and-effect for that thought - just because you can think in one moment, doesn't mean you exist - your thought exists compared to what exactly?

[FDG]

A existent object cannot interact with non-reality, man - so what's your point?

ahahaa, you're dead wrong! you're speaking about two dimensions when there's only one which is reality!

it's not like if we are both non existant we can have this conversation.

[Not A Communist Shill]

If non-reality doesn't exist, they how come you can contrast it with reality?

(If you can conceive non-reality, why do you think that you exist? And, if you can't conceive of non-reality, then how can you be so certain of your existence?)

[FDG]

If non-reality doesn't exist, they how come you can contrast it with reality?

reality = everything that is

non reality = everything that contradicts what is

also im not saying that non reality doesn't exist

im saying that in non reality we couldn't converse like this.

[Not A Communist Shill]

If non-reality did exist, then reality wouldn't be everything that existed. If non-reality doesn't exist, then how would you know that you were part of reality?

[tcaudilllg]

This conversation seems rather relevant to my own thoughts of late. I've begun to ponder the existence of an "unconscious God": an intelligence that exists, but has no awareness of itself. Given the existence of the information aspects, and the many ways the information elements can organize themselves, it seems like a reasonable possibility.

ahahaa, you're dead wrong! you're speaking about two dimensions when there's only one which is reality!

@Subterranean: I think you should give this up. You're clearly being supervised due to your poor apphrehension of .

[FDG]

If non-reality did exist, then reality wouldn't be everything that existed. If non-reality doesn't exist, then how would you know that you were part of reality?

Reread what I said I didn't say that non reality doesn't exist

non reality doesn't contradict the presence of reality by its own properties, therefore it can exist without contradicting reality, and it is a self contained set

i think there is some connection with the russels paradox now, but i dont feel like talking about it

i hope you are getting my point because you are repeating yourself

[MysticSonic]

"You can't say a non-existent chocolate bar has no chocolate, because then it wouldn't be a chocolate bar - the question of whether an object exists is detached from the properties of the object."

Wrong. A non-existent chocolate bar cannot possibly contain any sort of properties because it does not exist; to exist is to contain properties. This is why one cannot speak of non-existing things meaningfully; one can, however, speak of the idea of such a thing(a stage people often conceive as preceding existence and confuse with the attribute of non-existence.)

"You can't make something exist or not exist by making existence or non-existence one of its properties - e.g. some people say 'God exists out of necessity, therefore God exists'

Of course not; one cannot, as far as is apparent, define something into existence beyond ideas(which are completely at our power to create; meaning is the only thing I have found that humans possess the ability to create ex nihilo.)

"You may 'think, therefore I am', but both existent and non-existent things can do that - it's nice to be certain of a thought at a particular instance in time, but it doesn't automatically make you exist in reality - whatever that means."

Non-existent things can't do ANYTHING, they don't EXIST. Are you just trying to get me riled up or are you simply this pig-headed?

"You can't compare an existent thing to a non-existent thing to assess their differences, so how do you know that you exist?"

A non-existent thing is a nothing...I am not nothing, therefore I am. One cannot be mistaken about one's existence, due simply to the fact that one cannot mistake one's own existence if one does not exist.

[Ms. Kensington]

i think it is impossible to prove at its core whether things exist or do not exist in a physical way.

To accept one or the other side is to already be convinced of one's own accord, not by proof.

That said I think the example bionic goat mentioned is the best argument for those in favor of a physical existence. "look, there it is".

I do agree with what MS said earlier before the third page. Existence is existence is existence.

[FDG]

i think it is impossible to prove at its core whether things exist or do not exist in a physical way.

ahahaha what??? you can touch them!

[Ms. Kensington]

i think it is impossible to prove at its core whether things exist or do not exist in a physical way.

ahahaha what??? you can touch them!

To accept one or the other side is to already be convinced of one's own accord, not by proof.

[Not A Communist Shill]

If reality is 'everything that is', then reality obviously does exist - however, it would be an assumption to say that 'everything that is' necessarily exists because that is what reality is. Although reality exists as a word, whether objects fall into reality or not is impossible to decide - unless its an assumption - 'I see it, therefore it is'.

Why is non-reality = 'everything that contradicts what is'? Surely, by the same reasoning as the definition of 'reality', 'non-reality' = 'everything that isn't'. You can't prove the non-existence of an object by its absence, and likewise, you can't prove the existence of an object by its presence.

It isn't obvious that reality and existence are compatible - reality is everything we are able to perceive, whereas existence isn't something you prove by perceiving. You are able to perceive someone talking to you, but you can't prove that reality exists.

[krieger]

this is one of instances where logic seems to produce nothing but bullshit.

[Not A Communist Shill]

"You can't say a non-existent chocolate bar has no chocolate, because then it wouldn't be a chocolate bar - the question of whether an object exists is detached from the properties of the object."

Wrong. A non-existent chocolate bar cannot possibly contain any sort of properties because it does not exist; to exist is to contain properties. This is why one cannot speak of non-existing things meaningfully; one can, however, speak of the idea of such a thing(a stage people often conceive as preceding existence and confuse with the attribute of non-existence.)

Colour is a property of a red ball whether the ball exists or not - the properties of an object say nothing about its existence. 'Red' is an essential property of a red ball, whether the ball exists or not, otherwise it wouldn't be defined as a red ball.

[MysticSonic]

"Colour is a property of a red ball whether the ball exists or not"

A non-existent ball has no color.

"The properties of an object say nothing about its existence. 'Red' is an essential property of a red ball, whether the ball exists or not, otherwise it wouldn't be defined as a red ball."

Red is an essential property of an existent red-ball; a non-existent red ball does not exist, is not red, and thus does not possess the property of being red. Once again, you are confusing the idea of a red ball with its non-existence.

[MysticSonic]

"If reality is 'everything that is', then reality obviously does exist - however, it would be an assumption to say that 'everything that is' necessarily exists because that is what reality is."

It is difficult to define reality because people use it in so many ways. Some people define reality as what is physical, others define reality as what consists in the world of ideas, and others by what is physical and existing in the world of ideas. If you are defining it as "everything that exists," then for sake of conversation, I will speak of it as such.

"Although reality exists as a word, whether objects fall into reality or not is impossible to decide - unless its an assumption - 'I see it, therefore it is'. "

Of course---everything is based off of assumptions. Some, however, are justified without justification: if a, and not b, and b is c, then a is not c. You don't need to justify them because belief in such statements is warranted.

Now, from this fact we can see the veracity in the statement cogito ergo sum. One cannot think if one cannot exist, for non-existent things cannot do anything by definition. Thus, if I exist, I am part of reality, and have proven myself as part of it, without the use of any unjustified assumptions.