Existence is necessarily All-existing, Almighty, Alknowing, Infinite and eternal
-
Peace all
This is from some blog posts that I wrote here if anyone's interested
https//philosophyneedsgod.wordpress.comConsider the following challenge Can you think of something that has meaning but can never exist?
The argument in a nutshell, is as follows
(1) There is existence/x exists
(2) Everything that exists, does so only in existence
(3) We are fully dependent on existence
(4) All minds are limited to what existence allows
(5) Anything that is either rational/comprehensible/understandable, necessarily belongs to existence (existence accommodates it; as in existence has the potential to create it or produce it. This is what makes it a hypothetical possibility and this is why it has meaning. So a unicorn is a potential thing that Existence can produce) On the other hand, anything that is either irrational or incomprehensible is necessarily non-existent (existence does not accommodate it. For example, no square-circles can ever exist, such a phrase is absurd and makes no sense)
(6) ?infinity?, ?eternal?, ?almighty? and ?all knowing?, are all rational concepts that we have an understanding of. So Existence must accommodate these concepts. To deny this is to commit to the paradox of something coming from nothing. Therefore, either
6a) The potential is there for something to become almighty, or 6b) Something has always been almighty and will always be almighty.Only that which is all-existing can be almighty and all-knowing because you can't be almighty if you don't have reach or access to all of Existence. Similarly, you can't be all-knowing if you don't have reach or access to all of existence. So
- Only Existence can be almighty and all knowing
Existence has always existed and will always exist and nothing can ever take its place or substitute it in any way. Existent beings cannot expand to become that which is all-existing/omnipresent/Existence. Given 7, Nothing can ever become almighty from a non-almighty state. So 6a is impossible/absurd. But the concept of almighty has meaning and we have an understanding of it. It is not like the concept of a square-circle which is clearly an absurdity/contradiction/paradox/non-existence/nothingness.
THEREFORE, Existence must accommodate the concept. So given that it can't be 6a, this leaves 6b. So 6b is necessarily true.
In language and reason, everything belongs to the following 4 categories
Necessary (Existence, omnipotence, omniscience etc.)
Potential (Anything that can be brought about, so all hypothetical universes, creatures and beings that don't contain any absurdity, contradictions or paradoxes in their definition. An infinite Existence can accommodate all hypothetical possibilities)
Absurd (Absurd is anything that is necessarily non-existent or nothingness; something that have never existed and will never exist, like a square-circle or a married-bachelor)
Unknown (What we can't classify as either of the aforementioned three goes here. For example a 10th sense. There may be beings that have a 10th sense in existence or which would mean existence accommodates it; or, there the phrase 10th sense may be an absurdity like a married-bachelor. Essentially it's unknown to us and so irrelevant in our application of language and reason to it. As in we can't say its necessary, potential or absurd)
Again, can you think of something that has meaning but can never exist?
-
Peace Jafar.
When we say that the square root of a negative number "doesn't exist", we mean that there is no real number solution.
Like there are other problems in Maths with no solutions.
But in Maths there is such a thing as a square root of a negative number. If it did not exist it would not be there at all.
GOD bless you.
Peace. -
Also keep in mind brother Jafar that there are things that we have not discovered yet.
Does this mean they do not exist?
Or does it mean they have always existed but we did not come across them?
Something that does not exist will never be able to exist. Or is this not the case?
GOD bless you.
Peace. -
That is why please furtherly define what is "exist".
The original question was
Q can you think of something that has meaning but can never exist?
A Square root of any negative number.Example
Square root of -1.
Q Does it has meaning? Yes
Q Does it exist?- as a notation Yes
- as a concept Yes,
- In mathematician imaginary Yes
- In reality No square root of -1 doesn't exist. (Absurd)
Q What happened if we put square root of -1 into computer?
The computer will return an error or if the programmer of the computer didn't catch the error properly the computer will crash / hang. -
And that is why I said it does exist;
It has a meaning---- i x i = -1
It is a maths concept. We can clearly see it .But you are right about defining "exist"
Some will no doubt have a go here.For me, many things exist, but we cannot sense them and our knowledge is limited.
"Exist" means being where all the existing things are. Even if we cannot perceive them.
"Not exist" means never existed and nowhere to be ever seen/ found .
GOD bless you.
Peace. -
Square root of any negative number.
You need to furtherly define what is "Exist".
Something that has reality. Any kind of reality. If it has any kind of reality, then it's in existence. I'm not good at Maths but -1 has meaning and I can see how it applies to everyday things that we measure. The square root of 4 I understand, but the square root of -1 I don't understand. So long as it's not absurd like a married-bachelor or a square-circle, or a bendy straight line, then it's something that existence accommodates.
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.
-
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.