Do You Really Exist?

[MacM]

1Dude,

If there is no time then there is no change.
Do you disagree with this?

Yes. But that is another issue entirely. If you look at time as an enity or a 4th dimension in-of-itself, then your point could have meaning. But the fact is there is no evidence of an independant thing called time.

I see time as a property of energy in space causing change. Information about change is transmitted to your ordinate point and all such events at that ordinate constitute a "Dynamic Present" but consists of past events.

(I'm using past and present only to make the point. They are hypothetical mental concepts as will be demonstrated).

If you move in any direction you can clearly see that events that constitute your Dynamic Present are comprised of events that according to your prior ordinate are both from the past and in the future.

What you call time is nothing more than a property of an energetic space
So when you move you enter both past and future simultaneously. It is confusing but you exist in a dynamic energy flow, not time flow. Time is nothing more than our minds compillation of events into the order we see them change but time itself is not a tangiable enity.

To go back in time one would have to reverse the energy flow of the entire universe.

Just as the Big Bang didn't spew the material universe into an existing void but created space itself, it also created the energy flow which causes events or change which is what you want to call time. So pre-Big Bang there was no time-space, i.e. - "Nothingness".

 

[Gravage]

MacM

I respectfully submit the following statement written by J.P. Moreland for your consideration.

J.P. Moreland writes:

Isaac Asimov asserts that just as 0=+1+(-1), so nothingness may have spawned equal-sized globs of positive and negative energy. Davies makes a similar statement: “There is a still more remarkable possibility, which is the creation of matter from a state of zero energy. This possibility arises because energy can be both positive and negative.”

In order to see what is wrong with these statements, we need to investigate two issues: identity and prediction, and the ontological status of nonbeing. First, let us consider identity and prediction by looking at two sentences.

1. Socrates is the teacher of Plato.
2. Socrates is white.

Sentence 1 expresses an “is” of identity. Socrates is identical to the teacher of Plato. Identity is a relation which is reflexive (A is identical to itself), symmetrical (if A is identical to B, then B is identical to A), and transitive (if A is identical to B, and B is identical to C, then A is identical to C). If A and B are identical, then whatever is true of A is true of B and vice versa.

Sentence 2 expresses an “is” of predication. Socrates is not identical to whiteness. Whiteness is a property which Socrates has. Whiteness is predicated of Socrates. Predication is a different relation than identity. For example, predication is not transitive. If Socrates is white, and white is a color, then it does not follow that Socrates is a color.

One important feature of predication is relevant to our discussion. A cannot be predicated of B if B does not exist, except, perhaps, in thought only. Socrates could not really be white if Socrates did not exist. Predication is a relationship that a property has to a substance (or event or bare particular) which obtains only when the property and the substance really exist.

Next, let us consider the ontological status of nonbeing. Nonbeing (i.e., nothingness) does not exist. Nonbeing is not some shadowy mode of reality. Nonbeing has no properties and causes nothing; in short, it is a pure lack of existence. When someone says that something comes from nothing, this cannot mean that nonbeing was the efficient or material cause of that something. Nonbeing is not some shadowy stuff from which something is made.

This is sometimes put by saying that negative properties do not exist. There is a difference between negation (the simple denial of existence) and the positive assertion of the existence of nonbeing. An apple has a number of properties: redness, roundness, sweetness. When we deny that a apple has squareness we are denying the existence of a property in the apple. We are not asserting that, in addition to redness, the apple has the negative property of not-squareness.

We are now in a position to expose the problems inherent in the statements by Asimov and Davies. Suppose we have a container with ten protons and ten electrons. The total charge of the container is zero. The positive charge of each proton is a property predicated of that proton. The same is true of the negative charge of the electron (unless negative here is taken as some sort of privation). If one separated the protons from the electrons and put them into two different containers, one would have a positively-charged container and a negatively-charged container. But the positive and negative charges would not come from nothingness. It is simply that the total charge of the original container was zero because the positive charge was equal to the negative charge.

If a state of zero energy is conceived of as a state of affairs where the total amounts of positive and negative energy are equal, then when the positive and negative energy becomes separated, this is not a case of something coming from nothing. It is merely a case of separation.

If a state of zero energy is conceived of as nothingness, then it does not exist. Nothingness has no nature and thus it has no exigency or internal striving toward the production of any state of affairs, much less one where positive and negative energy is balanced. Nothingness might just as well have produced ten unicorns and five pens. Nothingness is not an entity which has an equal amount of positive and negative properties which comprise the stuff for the production of a specific state of affairs. Nothingness has no properties whatever, and it is not identical to an existent state of affairs where the positive and negative charge, or the positive and negative energy is equal. The latter contains some sort of stuff (protons and electrons or energy); the former contains nothing.

It is then, a mistake to use language like that of Asimov and Davies. Such talk seems to say that nonbeing is identical to an existent sate of affairs with positive and negative properties. But nonthingness is just that, and nothingness has no nature, causal powers, or tendencies toward anything whatsoever.

And yet how does nothingness exist,it has to have be some form of energy or existence.If existence is full-filled space,nothingness is empty space.There is always something,even if it's nothingness.

 

[MacM]

Gravage,

And yet how does nothingness exist,it has to have be some form of energy or existence.

I do not see how you can ever concieve the reality being suggested if you continue to make contridictory statements. It seems intuitively obvious that "Nothingness" cannot not contain energy or have properties.

Try once more to understand the signifigance of "Absence of Time-Space".

If existence is full-filled space,nothingness is empty space.There is always something,even if it's nothingness.

You are looking at "Your cup is full" or "Your cup is empty".

YOU DON'T HAVE A CUP.!

"Nothingness" is not empty space because space is not "Nothing", it is "Something".

 

[1Dude]

And yet how does nothingness exist,it has to have be some form of energy or existence.If existence is full-filled space,nothingness is empty space.There is always something,even if it's nothingness.

My Own Definition of Nothing:
Absolute Nothingness is the complete absence of the existence of all things whether in the form of matter, energy, time-space, or anything else known or unknown. It is the total absence of existence.

In my opinion, it is most logical to believe that a state of "Absolute Nothingness" has never been.

 

[MacM]

1Dude,

In my opinion, it is most logical to believe that a state of "Absolute Nothingness" has never been.

I would be interested to see how you justify this statement. Show us the logic! What existed pre-Big Bang.?

 

[jadedflower]

I am a brain in a vat.

 

[Dreamwalker]

First, to answer the question this thread poses, I do in fact exist, in some form which I will/can not define. My existence is proven because I can act and think, ergo I exist even if I am just somebody´s imagination.

Second, the question about nothingness is really interesting. (But I am inclined to say that mankind cannot find an answer to it)
When there was absolute nothingness, where did the universe come from. It is not possible that anything is created out of nothingness. If there was nothing in the beginning, there would be nothing now. But something is here, we are here in some way. It thus seems logical that there never was absolute nothingness. Alas, that poses another question, why does anything exist?

As I said, mankind is unable to find an answer to this.

 

[1Dude]

I would be interested to see how you justify this statement. Show us the logic! What existed pre-Big Bang.?

Absolute Nothingness has no existence to enable change or to be changed.

 

[MacM]

1Dude,

Absolute Nothingness has no existence to enable change or to be changed.

All I see here is a personal belief based on lack of knowledge. This is not a put down. None of know how it is possible but mathematically it is and it certainly makes more sense than the alternatives. God is totally illogical and adds nothing towards an answer. Eternal existance without ever coming into existance fails the first test of logic.

 

[1Dude]

All I see here is a personal belief based on lack of knowledge.

You are quite right but you forgot to add personal bias. At least I am trying!

This is not a put down.

It was not taken as such, Peace!

None of us know how it is possible

Then it may actually be wrong.

but mathematically it is

Yes it is! However, a purely mental possibility is not at all equivalent to physical reality. It currently remains only a mathematical or mental possibility. It has never been demonstrated to be a physical or actual reality. Virtual particles fail because they do not describe or account for the stability of a physical universe. They self-annihilate in an instant and so have a net physical result of nothing. Is there truly any basis in physical reality for holding this view as true? If so, please tell me?

and it certainly makes more sense than the alternatives.
God is totally illogical and adds nothing towards an answer.

Sorry, MacM, but you seem to be a bit intolerant of other alternatives.

Eternal existence without ever coming into existence fails the first test of logic.

Please expand on this thought!

Thank you for your considerate discussion of this topic. I really appreciate it! I am learning a lot from you and all of the others who have responded.

 

[MacM]

1Dude,

Then it may actually be wrong.

Absolutely true. But then again it offers a solution. Other arguements such as eternal existance are not only physically forbidden but only circumvent the question, not answer it.

Yes it is! However, a purely mental possibility is not at all equivalent to physical reality.

Agreed. But then again that is the very basis for Relativity. It is purely a mathematical concept without any stated or understandable cause. This is particularily true if you realize that the observations and experimental data may have alternative non-relavistic explanations.

Virtual particles fail because they do not describe or account for the stability of a physical universe. They self-annihilate in an instant and so have a net physical result of nothing.

Not entirely correct. I don't see virtual particles as coming from nothing. They arise from the quantum foam (energy) and upon annihilation they become real energy and that is not nothing.

Is there truly any basis in physical reality for holding this view as true? If so, please tell me?

The only basis is that there seems to be no other viable alternative. As stated above eternal existance, without ever having come into existance, is a non-starter for several reasons.

Sorry, MacM, but you seem to be a bit intolerant of other alternatives.

Not at all. Simply explain in plain english how a God resolves anything. I have seen it said that God is not subject to the same rules as we apply to physical reality and hence could be eternal. The problem is if I chose to bend the rules I don't need to declare a God. I only need to realize that our physical nature may not abide by the rules as we have made them. God is unnecessary and does not address the issue.

Posted by MacM: Eternal existence without ever coming into existence fails the first test of logic.

Posted by 1 Dude: Please expand on this thought!

Not sure how else to state the obvious. Something that exists must have come into existance to exist. To claim otherwise is to violate the simplest of concepts. If one chooses to do that, then keep it simple and bend the rules according to acceptable mathematics for our physical reality.

Don't create some ficticious God to accomplish the same objective. It is not justified. It serves no purpose.

 

[1Dude]

Thank you again for your kind and honest discussion of this topic with me. I am trying to learn and challenge my own understanding in this area. I will continue to look into this matter. If I come up with anything I will post it for your consideration. Until then, Peace and Gratitude!

 

[James R]

MacM:

[Relativity] is purely a mathematical concept without any stated or understandable cause.

Why do you persist in making statements like this one, when the causes behind relativity are well known, and have been explained to you on a number of occasions? It doesn't help your reputation.

This is particularily true if you realize that the observations and experimental data may have alternative non-relavistic explanations.

WHICH observations and experimental data? What explanations?

 

[MacM]

James R.,

By MacM:“ [Relativity] is purely a mathematical concept without any stated or understandable cause. ”

By James R.: Why do you persist in making statements like this one, when the causes behind relativity are well known, and have been explained to you on a number of occasions? It doesn't help your reputation.

Because it is a true statement. Perhaps you would like to enlighten us as to the "Causes". Not the mathematical consequences but the "Cause" of the invariance of light. The cause of non-linear mass to velocity relationship. The "Cause" of dimensional contraction, etc. Unless I slept through that class I don't recall ever seeing a "Cause" given.

That is why Relativity is classed as a "Mathematical Model" and not a "Physical Model"

By MacM:“ This is particularily true if you realize that the observations and experimental data may have alternative non-relavistic explanations. ”

By James R.:WHICH observations and experimental data? What explanations?

This of course would include your "Illusion Solution" for FTL, which I ultimately showed only explains 1% of such observations and which you argued was "The" answer.

Or perhaps the fact that mass doesn't actually increase at all but that it can be an illusion of energy transfer efficiency decrease with relative velocity.

Or that gravity can be explained in a way that not only provides the inverse square initially but flattens over glactic distances which could mitigate if not eliminate Dark Matter and then becomes repulsive eliminating Dark Energy and giving understanding to the accelerating expansion of the universe, all as one coherent natural process in lieu of three different regimes caused by three different sources.

If GR does that, I must have slept through that course as well. If Relativity (GR) does I would greatly appreciate seeing your proof how GR explains the "CAUSES" of gravity over its entire range of observations.

I just don't recall seeing GR actually fit observation when you really think about it.

http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/n1560.gif

Before you waste your breath saying MOND is invalid, let me say I agree. This isn't presented to support MOND but to show the falicy of claiming Relativity is ever so correct.

The "Blue" Phi symbols are actual observation and it can be seen that Newtonian gravity is FAR from representing reality. As I recall Relativity is tauted as being an ultra precise adjustment, something on the order of the 7th decimal place of Newtonian gravity which correctly explained Mercury's orbit.

It seems clear that a 7th decimal place adjustment is GROSSLY inadequate to match observation. Why do you even attempt to continue to claim Relativity is valid??

It fails on the macroscopic scale and it fails on the microscopic scale. It is nothing more than a useful algorithum for general use but has no validity to representing reality.