Existence is necessarily All-existing, Almighty, Alknowing, Infinite and eternal
-
It would be interesting to know
What is nonexistence? Is it conceivable?Salaam
Non-existence is absurd. It is nothingness. It is not conceivable. Can you rationally negate existence?
-
It would be interesting to know
What is nonexistence? Is it conceivable?Salaam
Many centuries ago, from Indus valley civilization, we have learned that "Non Existence" exist.
We have a symbol for it NULL
The same civilization which teaches us another concept Infinity, symbolIt might be 'undecipherable' and 'unprocessable' but it exist.
The same as 'imaginary' number such as square root of negative numbers, NULL is the majority of the root cause on why your computer / laptop / phone crashes or hang.
Which can act as an 'evidence' for it's existence and also it's characteristic of unprocessable or unmutability.To further clarify on exist, I essentially mean it plays a role in existence. So with like maths and measurements, they play a role. For example we can all conceive of Superman lifting a 25,000kg truck. But we can't coherently conceive Nelson Mandela doing the same. Because Nelson Mandela doesn't have the sufficient force to carry out the act whereas Superman does. The maths and the science all work fine with regards to Superman lifting a 25,000kg truck whilst there are scientific and mathematical absurdities with regards to Nelson Mandela doing the same thing.
Then you need to define the "context" for the "existence" to make it clear.
Within the context of "this universe", superman only exist in fantasy or imaginary character.
It doesn't really exist in "this universe" as a 'real' living and breathing (super) human.The same as Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy or the deities that idol represent.
If then we put "Nelson Mandela" as imaginary character.
And we put a background (mythological) story that Nelson Mandela was biten by a mutated mosquito when he was a child, which resulted in super human strength. Then the (yet another mythological) story that Nelson Mandela lifted 25,000 Kg truck or even spitted the moon in half will become conceivable, within the context of human imagination. -
We have a symbol for it NULL
It doesn't matter if you have a symbol for it or not. What matters is whether it has meaning or not. How can something have meaning if it's paradoxical/contradictory/absurd? Absurdity is the negation of meaning. Non-existence is the negation of existence. The negation of existence is absurd. Nothingness is absurd. Non-existence is absurd. Any attempt at a definition of non-existence or nothingness will generate absurdity.
Are you saying that non-existence is not an absurd concept? Or are you saying that non-existence is an absurd concept that has meaning? Or are you saying something else entirely?
We have an understanding of the concept of infinity. It's not an absurd or paradoxical concept. Whereas non-existence is clearly an absurd concept. Things can change in existence but they can never go "into non-existence". You can negate things in existence by changing them into something else, but this is not the same as negating something into non-existence. They may appear the same on initial glance but think about it
- The ice cube was negated out of existence.
- The ice cube melted and turned to water.
1 and 2 are not the same. The ice cube did not go into non-existence, it changed to something else. Just as creation involves things changing as opposed to something coming from nothing, negating something also requires things changing as opposed to something going into nothing.
Also, you can never negate ice cubes out of existence because it will always be hypothetically possible for existence to produce ice cubes. The potentially will always be there. Semantically, Ice cubes alone will never be an absurdity. Ice cubes in lava may be absurd just like a square-circle is be absurd. You'd require science and maths to verify that though. Square-circles on the other hand, are by default, always non-existent/absurd.
Then you need to define the "context" for the "existence" to make it clear.
Within the context of "this universe", superman only exist in fantasy or imaginary character.
It doesn't really exist in "this universe" as a 'real' living and breathing (super) human.The same as Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy or the deities that idol represent.
If then we put "Nelson Mandela" as imaginary character.
And we put a background (mythological) story that Nelson Mandela was biten by a mutated mosquito when he was a child, which resulted in super human strength. Then the (yet another mythological) story that Nelson Mandela lifted 25,000 Kg truck or even spitted the moon in half will become conceivable, within the context of human imagination.Yes, the definition that we have of Nelson Mandela scientifically and mathematically entails that he cannot lift a 25,000 Kg truck, but if we change our definition of him, so for example his DNA changed overnight or he got super powers such that the math and the science add up, then it no longer is an absurdity. The potential for a Super Nelson Mandela lifting a 25,000kg truck is there but the potential for the Nelson Mandela that is mathematically and scientifically too weak to lift such a weight is absurd.
It's because Existence is infinite and things within it are so amenable to change that we are able to have the imagination that we have along with all the concepts that we have.
-
Well if you prove that there is no non-existence then existence is proved, right?
Salaam
I don't know. What I do know Non-existence is paradoxical so it proves that it doesn't exist. You cannot have reason or language if you did not have existence, therefore the first item of knowledge is that Existence exists.
-
Well if you prove that there is no non-existence then existence is proved, right?
According to Lao Tse, it's more of Existence need Non-Existence and vice versa.
The concept, stated more than 2000 years ago, get resurfaced with the discovery of Quantum Physics in 20th century.
This universe is much weirder than human think it was..Whereas non-existence is clearly an absurd concept. Things can change in existence but they can never go "into non-existence".
According to quantum physics... They can..
In this universe anything that is exist can go and eventually go into non existence.. and vice versa.
Human are still struggling with understanding of the concept.. but clearly non-existence is not an absurd concept anymore.
Due to non-existence, existence exist.. and vice versa... -
Peace Jafar.
When you say, quote
In this universe anything that is exist can go and eventually go into non existence.. and vice versa.Please give an example.
I thought once something exist ,then either is lost /hidden from us or changed into something else /different if we do not see/feel its existence anymore? This does not mean it went into inexistence?
If something does not exist, how can it change into existence? Logically impossible. Nothing is nothing!
If by some cause/power something was created/made and it exists . Then existence is the cause.
If there was only non existence, then things cannot exist and will never exist. The cause is needed!
GOD bless you.
Peace. -
So I back up what I think brother nimnimak_11 is saying by
Existence always existed otherwise nothing will exist.
If there was only non existence at the start, then nothing would exist.
Non existence always needs existence for things to exist.
GOD bless.
Peace. -
I think somebody is confusing here the existence of anything in particular woth existence of anything at all.
While the zero concept goes for 0 existence of something, I do not kno of any such a thing as 0 existence of anything at all. I said that is unconceivable, at least for us.
Salaam
-
According to quantum physics... They can..
No, they can't. Everything (including scientific observations) require reason. You make scientific theories by applying reason to the observations made. When reason is clearly stating that it is paradoxical for something to into non-existence, any scientific observation made would have to avoid this paradox otherwise it would be entirely meaningless. Think about it, is it more plausible that things go into somewhere else that we can't see or that they go into non-existence?
ut clearly non-existence is not an absurd concept anymore.
Non-existence has always been and absurd concept and will always be an absurd concept.
Due to non-existence, existence exist.. and vice versa
No Existence exists. That is all. It is the first item of knowledge as requires Existence. Reason dictates non-existence is absurd. Saying something like due to non-existence existence exist is paradoxical/irrational.
-
I think somebody is confusing here the existence of anything in particular woth existence of anything at all.
While the zero concept goes for 0 existence of something, I do not kno of any such a thing as 0 existence of anything at all. I said that is unconceivable, at least for us.
Salaam
I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Do you disagree with the definition Existence = that which is all-existing/omnipresent? Non-existence is meaningless. It's absurd/contradictory/paradoxical like a a square-circle because...it can never exist.
-
No I do not know what you mean by all-existing that would b different from existing.
omnipresent, I can imagine what you mean, but I do not see how it is part of existing, present yes omnipresent, cna't see what you means.Salaam
Salam Huruf
If you understand omnipresence, can you make sense of Existence without it? Can you have a non-contradictory, non-paradoxical definition of Existence without it being omnipresent, infinite and eternal?
-
No, they can't. Everything (including scientific observations) require reason. You make scientific theories by applying reason to the observations made. When reason is clearly stating that it is paradoxical for something to into non-existence, any scientific observation made would have to avoid this paradox otherwise it would be entirely meaningless. Think about it, is it more plausible that things go into somewhere else that we can't see or that they go into non-existence?
Non-existence has always been and absurd concept and will always be an absurd concept.That is why CONTEXT is needed.
Define the context before defining exist or non exist.No Existence exists. That is all. It is the first item of knowledge as requires Existence. Reason dictates non-existence is absurd. Saying something like due to non-existence existence exist is paradoxical/irrational.
Yes no existence does exist. Non existent is not absurd at all.
Just because it is paradoxical doesn't mean that it is irrational.Let's give context now, the phenomenon of non existent in this universe does exist in this universe.
A particle can change state from exist in this universe to become non-existence in/from this universe.
And vice versa. -
Peace Jafar.
How can this be possible? QuoteA particle can change state from exist in this universe to become non-existence in/from this universe.
And vice versa.Where did the particle go? The particle still exist in another domain out of this universe. Or does only this universe exist?
If only this universe exist, then the particle could be somewhere else in this universe.Or give an example of a particle that becomes nothing. i.e not a particle or changed particle but nothing(transferred from exist to non-exist).
GOD bless you.
Peace -
That is why CONTEXT is needed.
Define the context before defining exist or non exist.How is Existence = that which is omnipresent. You give me any other definition and I'll show you that it's paradoxical. Use any kind of context you want.
Yes no existence does exist. Non existent is not absurd at all.
Just because it is paradoxical doesn't mean that it is irrational.Non-existence is absurd. Always has been, always will be.
Let's give context now, the phenomenon of non existent in this universe does exist in this universe.
A particle can change state from exist in this universe to become non-existence in/from this universe.
And vice versa.For something to become non-existent in this universe is fine because that is not the same as it went from this universe into non-existence. It essentially means it went to some other existing place or that it changed to something else.
You can put words, sentences and theories together in the wrong way (this is possible, this is a phenomenon) I am not in disagreement with this. So for example
A) You can have someone say square-circle (putting words together in the wrong way)
B) You can have someone say a square within a circle (putting words together in the right way)What A says can never exist whilst what B says can exist. A is being irrational, whilst B is being rational.