Does nonexistence exist?

Printable View

01-25-2009, 02:43 AM
Universal Mind

Does nonexistence exist?

If nonexistence exists, then how is it nonexistence? If nonexistence does not exist, then how is it not between two triangles that share a side? Also, (Marc's idea in another thread) if nonexistence does not exist, does the nonexistence of nonexistence exist? If it does, wouldn't that be an example of how nonexistence does exist?
01-25-2009, 03:23 AM
Original Poster

nonexistence nonexists, just as neither existence nor nonexistence doesn't exist nor nonexist
01-25-2009, 03:38 AM
Tyler

Quote:

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If nonexistence exists, then how is it nonexistence? If nonexistence does not exist, then how is it not between two triangles that share a side? Also, (Marc's idea in another thread) if nonexistence does not exist, does the nonexistence of nonexistence exist? If it does, wouldn't that be an example of how nonexistence does exist?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

nonexistence nonexists, just as neither existence nor nonexistence doesn't exist nor nonexist

your logic makes my head hurt....
:confused::uhm::shock::o:shakehead::huh::doh::eh:
01-25-2009, 03:53 AM
Carôusoul

Category error baw.
01-25-2009, 04:01 AM
really

"Non-existence" exists as merely a concept and nothing more.

Otherwise, there's nothing to talk about.
01-25-2009, 04:05 AM
Universal Mind

Quote:

Originally Posted by really

"Non-existence" exists as merely a concept and nothing more.

Otherwise, there's nothing to talk about.

Then what is between two rectangles that share a side?
01-25-2009, 04:07 AM
drewmandan

This sentence is a lie.
01-25-2009, 04:14 AM
really

Quote:

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Then what is between two rectangles that share a side?

If they share a side, there is no "between" them.
01-25-2009, 04:18 AM
Carôusoul

Quote:

Originally Posted by really

If they share a side, there is no "between" them.

But you're talking about it?

So it is a concept, and nothing more.
01-25-2009, 04:24 AM
really

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

But you're talking about it?

So it is a concept, and nothing more.

We talk about two different rectangles, and that they share a side. Drawing such a diagram, we see the shared side is no longer a side at all.

Now, they "share a side", and thus: They're united as one larger rectangle, and the sides disappear into each other. Thus, the sides no longer exist, and thus, no line to be drawn, unless we reconsider them as separate.
01-25-2009, 04:25 AM
Carôusoul

Quote:

Originally Posted by really

We talk about two different rectangles, and that they share a side. Drawing such a diagram, we see the shared side is no longer a side at all.

Now, they "share a side", and thus: They're united as one larger rectangle, and the sides disappear into each other. Thus, the sides no longer exist, and thus, no line to be drawn.

So there isn't even a concept?
01-25-2009, 04:28 AM
really

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

So there isn't even a concept?

Yeah, there is - that's the point. Concepts!

Now, let's examine Universal Mind's avatar. How is that physically possible? :D
01-25-2009, 04:30 AM
Carôusoul

Quote:

Originally Posted by really

Yeah, there is - that's the point. Concepts!

Now, let's examine Universal Mind's avatar. How is that physically possible? :D

See I don't think we do have a concept of it.

Nor do we of "nonexistence". We may have an innacurate concept of surrounding features but not of the intrinsic nature of the things.
01-25-2009, 04:44 AM
really

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

See I don't think we do have a concept of it.

Nor do we of "nonexistence". We may have an innacurate concept of surrounding features but not of the intrinsic nature of the things.

I think it is a concept, because it is a mentation; an automatic assumption of the dualistic mind. Sometimes the mind may even think its existence could be subject to non-existence, which is impossible. It's just a conceptual assumption.

I don't think there is any use asking the OP question, or even saying that "existence exists", because they are self-definitions and self-evident.
01-25-2009, 04:45 AM
Carôusoul

Quote:

Originally Posted by really

I don't think there is any use asking the OP question, or even saying that "existence exists", because they are self-definitions and self-evident.

Agreed on this.

Rest is nothing.
01-25-2009, 06:42 AM
Universal Mind

Quote:

Originally Posted by really

We talk about two different rectangles, and that they share a side. Drawing such a diagram, we see the shared side is no longer a side at all.

It's still a side even though the two rectangles together form another rectangle. There are proofs based on that principle.

Quote:

Originally Posted by really

Now, let's examine Universal Mind's avatar. How is that physically possible? :D

Trick photography. :cool:
01-25-2009, 08:01 AM
Original Poster

Just admit I had it right the first time.
01-25-2009, 03:48 PM
really

Quote:

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It's still a side even though the two rectangles together form another rectangle. There are proofs based on that principle.

Yeah? Does it have anything to do with any "infinitely" small space between the two shapes?

My example was more metaphorical I guess.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Trick photography. :cool:

It would be interesting also to physically build something similar to that, yet have it as a visual illusion at a specific angle. :D
01-25-2009, 05:16 PM
Abra

I smell a language fault here. Language creates unneeded double meanings which would inevitably form a paradox. "This statement is false." Y'dig? So I'll tackle this in a practical manner.

Nonexistence cannot be matter, energy, or thought. Anything that hasn't been thought of yet is nonexistent. The "quality" of nonexistence exists, in one aspect. The only reason nonexistence can be a quality of something that does not exist (this is where the paradox is), is because of how humans think.

This is going to make less sense than I originally intended. Whatever.
01-25-2009, 05:20 PM
Carôusoul

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abra

I smell a language fault here. Language creates unneeded double meanings which would inevitably form a paradox. "This statement is false." Y'dig? So I'll tackle this in a practical manner.

Nonexistence cannot be matter, energy, or thought. Anything that hasn't been thought of yet is nonexistent. The "quality" of nonexistence exists, in one aspect. The only reason nonexistence can be a quality of something that does not exist (this is where the paradox is), is because of how humans think.

This.
01-25-2009, 05:46 PM
Universal Mind

Quote:

Originally Posted by really

Yeah? Does it have anything to do with any "infinitely" small space between the two shapes?

There is nothing between them, but whether or not nothingness and infinite smallness are the same is something we debated very vigorously in two threads recently. Apparently, they are the same "thing".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abra

I smell a language fault here. Language creates unneeded double meanings which would inevitably form a paradox. "This statement is false." Y'dig? So I'll tackle this in a practical manner.

Nonexistence cannot be matter, energy, or thought. Anything that hasn't been thought of yet is nonexistent. The "quality" of nonexistence exists, in one aspect. The only reason nonexistence can be a quality of something that does not exist (this is where the paradox is), is because of how humans think.

This is going to make less sense than I originally intended. Whatever.

Yeah, I think you nailed it about as well as language will allow.
01-26-2009, 06:45 AM
really

So, do we all agree on eternal life, then? :D
01-26-2009, 12:31 PM
Original Poster

Once again I find myself living in my own paradigm.

Maybe some day people will look back at me in wonder. Hell, if that singularity thing is true maybe it'll be sooner rather than later.
01-26-2009, 04:06 PM
Techno

Is anybody else not surprised O'nus hasn't posted in here?
01-26-2009, 04:54 PM
Universal Mind

Quote:

Originally Posted by really

So, do we all agree on eternal life, then? :D

Hmmm... Existence is eternal, and I am nothing other than existence. So the only thing that I am is eternal. I am eternal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Danciu

Is anybody else not surprised O'nus hasn't posted in here?

Why are you not surprised?
01-27-2009, 03:21 AM
Techno

This is a rather surprising topic. You question the existence of that with the quality of nonexistence. I'd rather say you either believe if it's true or not. Not really something that can be debated in full. Such as "does a point take up any space in the physical universe?" or "if the universe is infinite in complexity and mass, is nonexistence possible?"
01-27-2009, 07:07 AM
really

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Once again I find myself living in my own paradigm.

By the way, we all live in our own paradigms (removing any similarities). I understand your point, but I'd like to add that every single person has a very unique consciousness and understanding of life.

The paradigm of one's awareness is related to the level of consciousness, as awareness is intrinsic to consciousness. The point here is, with higher awareness, are there less problems - and importantly, a wider recognition of Truth. This is because the context or paradigm of awareness becomes expansive to hold greater meaning in the walks of life. Einstein recognized that if there is a reoccurring problem, one's level of consciousness must expand to a greater context to thereafter comprehend greater meaning.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Hmmm... Existence is eternal, and I am nothing other than existence. So the only thing that I am is eternal. I am eternal.

Yayy! :lol:
01-27-2009, 08:51 AM
Universal Mind

Quote:

Originally Posted by really

Yayy! :lol:

The truth is somewhere in there. I almost feel like I can touch my immortality and the fact that I have always existed, as you have. We are the same being. Mount Rushmore and Neptune are that same being too. Only one thing exists, and it always has and always will. That's good news! :bigteeth:
01-27-2009, 09:43 AM
Serkat

This is the first (and perhaps last) time I've ever agreed with really.

Nonexistence is a concept, so whether or not it "exists" depends on the semantic scope of the word "exist". Is it limited to the physical, or does it include other realms? Does the color "red" exist under this definition? It also depends on the meaning of concept. Is it simply referring to a mental item, or is it referring to something external that the mind has a representation of? Combining these two questions, you get the answer to your original question.

My answer would be no, since you are referring to "nonexistence" as an external concept and I don't believe that ideas exist outside of minds.
01-27-2009, 10:37 AM
Carôusoul

Quote:

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The truth is somewhere in there. I almost feel like I can touch my immortality and the fact that I have always existed, as you have. We are the same being. Mount Rushmore and Neptune are that same being too. Only one thing exists, and it always has and always will. That's good news! :bigteeth:

Unsure. Look around you, the world is divided and on a practical level you will continue to see it as such. The world is divided, the whole point of division or non division is based on our understanding and conceptualisation of reality; and it is in this way that we understand the world. Ontologically we concieve of the world and fundamentally and intrinsically imagine in forms of division. "The way things are" as I can only assume you are referring to truth as, comes solely from our empirical observation thus far, and we concieve in the earlier mentioned ontological fashion, meaning that to make some kind of 'truth statement' of the way things are which then contradicts your empirical given understanding of truth then becomes a wary statement: As in a seeming presumption rooting originally yes from empirical method and understanding but adopting a concept that grows out from within a divided conception; this obviously can be directly applied to the statement that "all is one". Its about personal definition so much as genuine truth value; I suppose. The actual way in which we are concieving of the world is changing; but based on earlier presumptions contradictory to our newer conception, but what can even be said of that without coming immediately from our conception. Either way it makes it slightly troublesome to make such a statement, if not strictly 'wrong' or 'right' as we are generally led to accept those definitions.
01-27-2009, 11:38 AM
really

Quote:

Originally Posted by Serkat

This is the first (and perhaps last) time I've ever agreed with really.

LOL

Quote:

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The truth is somewhere in there. I almost feel like I can touch my immortality and the fact that I have always existed, as you have. We are the same being. Mount Rushmore and Neptune are that same being too. Only one thing exists, and it always has and always will. That's good news! :bigteeth:

I'm quite surprised that there is someone here agreeing with me! :) That is quite odd!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

Unsure. Look around you, the world is divided and on a practical level you will continue to see it as such. The world is divided, the whole point of division or non division is based on our understanding and conceptualisation of reality; and it is in this way that we understand the world. Ontologically we concieve of the world and fundamentally and intrinsically imagine in forms of division. "The way things are" as I can only assume you are referring to truth as, comes solely from our empirical observation thus far, and we concieve in the earlier mentioned ontological fashion, meaning that to make some kind of 'truth statement' of the way things are which then contradicts your empirical given understanding of truth then becomes a wary statement: As in a seeming presumption rooting originally yes from empirical method and understanding but adopting a concept that grows out from within a divided conception; this obviously can be directly applied to the statement that "all is one". Its about personal definition so much as genuine truth value; I suppose. The actual way in which we are concieving of the world is changing; but based on earlier presumptions contradictory to our newer conception, but what can even be said of that without coming immediately from our conception. Either way it makes it slightly troublesome to make such a statement, if not strictly 'wrong' or 'right' as we are generally led to accept those definitions.

Sorry, but can you explain that in a different way? I'm not understanding you. :D