Scientists...Got it wrong again!
- Thread starter peilthetraveler
- Start date
__________________________________
WARNING: The following contents may be unsuitable for sane persons..
Pardon me while I indulge shamelessly in some mad conjecturing (as you already know I am inclined to do) lliberally based on your ideas.
Let's consider different possible levels or modes of existing and their respective relations to Time.
Modes of existing:
a) The existing of Existence,
b) The existing of Real things,
c) The existing of Possible things.
----------------------------------------------------
re a) The existing of Existence could be differentiated from the existing of all other things in order for Existence to be differentiated from other things - unless it's something analogous to a material box containing various material objects. The box analogy seems unlikely though, since the box would be subject to the same limitations as its contents.
You say Time is not a necessary element of Existence. Timeless Existence is Eternity - a concept common to many religions and a concept I have difficulty with because the absence of Time implies stasis to me. It could be that change and movement can occur in Eternity if Time (or its equivalent) in Eternity doesn't manifest in any way in the Real or manifests in the Real as something we don't recognize as Time.
On the other hand, Existence may be a sort of absolutely static framework the very stasis of which is what differentiates it from the Real and Possible.
----------
re b) As far as we know the existing of Real things requires Time or Time manifesting itself in the Real. Time is change and all Real things change.
---------
re c) From the Real perspective the existing of Possible things also requires Time since that which is Possible changes with changes within the world of the Real.
From the perspective of the Possible, however, it may (or may not) be that the Possible is static (frozen in Time) and emerges into the Real only as the Real selectively presents opportunities for such emergences.
---------
It's conceivable, perhaps, that within the context of Existence Real and Possible are only subtley differentiated and may be separated by something as analogously simple as location.
-------
Perhaps what separates capital-E Existence, Real, Possible is some sort of dimensional relationship.
------
In terms of our Real experience of Time the Possible seems to connote Future in that the Possible is either yet to be or in the process of becoming. The Real seems a combination of the Present (which could be the leading edge of the Past and where Real and Possible interface and all becoming occurs) and the Past in that all Real things have histories.
----------------------------------
Have I embarrassed you enough? (Never spark a diseased imagination.)
HH
First, What reason is there to differentiate Existence from the real and possible? They both exist don't they?
What's wrong with the box being subject to the same circumstances as its contents? I don't see any limitations here.
Second, The absence of Time is a paradoxical abstract concept. I think this response to WaveStrider addresses your point .
"Again if there ever were any such a thing as before time, then that state or that case of before time would exist in whatever form or way it took. Quantum perhaps? It's nonsensical, so in a way in which cannot be known perhaps. Nevertheless then , that state would exist !
In any dimensionality beyond our senses, that dimensionality would exist. Otherwise there would be another state (even if that were beyond our senses) so that it did not exist."
Then it would exist as such.
Existence exists.
Ok I wouldn't disagree with that. Things require Existence and Time to exist in real time.
In the real perspective I agree, the possible needs Existence and time. Real needs existence to exist, and it needs Time.
However in reality - a state of Existing in possibility - is the existence of possibility, not the existence of possible things.
Possibility exists - signifies Existence is essential and paramount to it.
My argument supports Existence exists as an axiomatic fact. Both in reality and conceptually
Existence exists for everything.
...including pre-beginnings. It's intuitive really. Isn't it.
Nothing separates Existence from anything. If something did, it would exist.
Existence exists.
Elegant irreducible dominant.
Quote from stu:
First, What reason is there to differentiate Existence from the real and possible? They both exist don't they?
What's wrong with the box being subject to the same circumstances as its contents? I don't see any limitations here.
Nothing separates Existence from anything. If something did, it would exist.
Existence exists.
Elegant irreducible dominant.
I just got up and have to start my day's trading. I'll get back to this (in its entirety).
We may be at cross-purposes here. Do you make a distinction between the modes of existing of Existence, the stand-alone entity, and Existing, the gerundial abstraction?
My answer is - No.
And I don't see why we should be at cross-purposes.
The stand-alone entity exists...
Then Existence is existing, therefore existence exists too.
Abstraction exists, therefore existence exists right there too.
Even if non of those things exist there exists a state or situation, whatever that is, so that those things do not. Therefore existence exists, all ways.
The noun does not become the verb anywhere I can see. Not even in the abstract. Do you see it anywhere? No of course not.
Now, get back to work!
Quote from stu:
My answer is - No.
And I don't see why we should be at cross-purposes.
The stand-alone entity exists...
Then Existence is existing, therefore existence exists too.
Abstraction exists, therefore existence exists right there too.
Even if non of those things exist there exists a state or situation, whatever that is, so that those things do not. Therefore existence exists, all ways.
The noun does not become the verb anywhere I can see. Not even in the abstract. Do you see it anywhere? No of course not.
Now, get back to work!
I have a moment.
Consider this :
Our galaxy contains many things that exist on many different levels and in many different ways. The galaxy contents include stars, planets, black holes, quantum foam, gravity, cars, carrots, human beings with their human thoughts and feelings, &c, &c, &c, &c - a whole big bunch of different kinds of stuff.
If we consider the Milky Way not contextually as a part of the greater whole of Existence but as a stand-alone entity will you accept our galaxy as analogous to capital-E Existence in that the galaxy is to the entirety of its contents as Existence is to all that exists?
Well ok if you want. I'll go along. But what are you driving at?
Have you constructed that false analogy for the purpose of explaining something else.....???
I canât see where you are going with this H, because existence is Everything that exists anywhere.
But anyway I'll go along for now, or is that it!
Quote from stu:
Well ok if you want. I'll go along. But what are you driving at?
Have you constructed that false analogy for the purpose of explaining something else.....???
I canât see where you are going with this H, because existence is Everything that exists anywhere.
But anyway I'll go along for now, or is that it!
You'll go along with a 'false analogy'!? So you're rejecting the analogy. Anyway... again...
Just as Existence is everything that exists within its ambit (everywhere) the Galaxy is everything that exists within its ambit (the limits of the galaxy). The fact that one ambit may be infinite while the other is finite is irrelevant if we are considering each entity in isolation. (Infinity in isolation? Yes, perfectly valid if we identify infinity as an entity.).
The point I wish to make is that Existence is not homogenous - that the existing of Existence is not the same in kind as is the existing of the Real or of the Possible just as the existing of the galaxy is different in kind from the existing of any of its contents. The whole (Existence//galaxy) is greater than the sum of its parts (Possible , Real, ?//stars, particles, ?) and different in kind from any of its parts.
There are modes of existing and none is more valid than any other. The existing of a thing in Possibility is not of lesser consequence than the existing of a thing in Reality - it's just less accessible to observation except in a very crude way through current mathematics (probabilty).
If we consider Existence in toto, the Possible and the Real have equal presence within that context.
I had expected you to accept this point easily since you appear to have made references to different ways of existing here and there in this thread (for instance "existing in Possibilty" vs "existing in fact").
Have I been misreading you?
HH
I should explain , I don't disagree with the point that existence is not homogenous .
Things don't exist in the same manner, in that way existence can be said to differ in form, kind,etc. But every thing has existence.
So you could say in that second context existence is uniform. That is your big 'E' in my view.
Is that the gerundial abstraction you referred to earlier?
If so, I'd say it is more to do with denoting clear and approriate context than anything.
"If we consider the Milky Way not contextually as a part of the greater whole of Existence...."
that is what I would have to 'go along' with.
Other than that no problem with what you say above. Itâs well put, please proceed.
Things don't exist in the same manner, in that way existence can be said to differ in form, kind,etc. But every thing has existence.
So you could say in that second context existence is uniform. That is your big 'E' in my view.
Is that the gerundial abstraction you referred to earlier?
If so, I'd say it is more to do with denoting clear and approriate context than anything.
"If we consider the Milky Way not contextually as a part of the greater whole of Existence...."
that is what I would have to 'go along' with.
Other than that no problem with what you say above. Itâs well put, please proceed.