I remember many a day, getting hammered for even using the word.

Now it seems the term is all over the place.

Who is going to assist with the term "existence" as it is being used in this section?

Or should i just assume, that i understand english, that "existence" is kind of 'everything at the same time'.............?


Oh masters of this universe please assist.

Existence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence)

I remember many a day, getting hammered for even using the word.

Now it seems the term is all over the place.

Who is going to assist with the term "existence" as it is being used in this section?


Or should i just assume, that i understand english, that "existence" is kind of 'everything at the same time'.............?

yes

and in and out of existence

yes

and in and out of existence

what is that?

(without hypothetical usage) ie.... some theory of utter dimensions (or heaven and hell; theological belief)

Existence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence)


i got this from there


Aristotle developed a complicated theory of being, according to which only individual things, called substances fully have being, but other things such as relations, quantity, time and place (called the categories) have a derivative kind of being, dependent on individual things

Seems the A-man shared "time" as dependent on things (mass) and 'relations' could be asserted as energy (measured potential/differences).

and i remember a while back suggesting 'existence' as being similar to what physicist share in the 'big bang' analogy as 'all mass, all energy and all time'

Mass, Energy, Time (the total) as a unit ONE (everything) as being 'existence' itself.

does that make sense?

...
and i remember a while back suggesting 'existence' as being similar to what physicist share in the 'big bang' analogy as 'all mass, all energy and all time'

Mass, Energy, Time (the total) as a unit ONE (everything) as being 'existence' itself.

does that make sense?

Oh woe is me that I have to say this but,


yes.

It does make sense.

[See Bishadi, I may be a harsh philosopher, but I'm an honest one.... :-) ]


Aristotle, and apparently yourself, are ontological monists.
You're not alone.

In any case, as a response to the OP, let me say this [as I'm (clearly) no ontological monist...]:

"existence" is nothing beyond a semantically superfluous term that is derived simply due to the nature of how we syntactically arrange our words.
Which is to say, "existence" has no real referent; its application cannot be reasonably denied.

Oh woe is me that I have to say this but,


yes.

It does make sense.

[See Bishadi, I may be a harsh philosopher, but I'm an honest one.... :-) ]

in time each can see

but the great ones see it on the first pass.

You know what thread i intend to open up next?

Is 'existence' defining itself?

perhaps then you can pull off the wolfs as now, you know, i was seeing quite clearly the day i came on this forum and it was only the language barrier of defining the word.

i used the same word (EXISTENCE) way way way back when.



Aristotle, and apparently yourself, are ontological monists.
You're not alone. no label of disciplines, for me, please...

you can call yourself and the A man what-ever you like

i am not a "them" or 'one of those'............. i am just me.


In any case, as a response to the OP, let me say this [as I'm (clearly) no ontological monist...]:

Ok then we know what shelf to put you on.

Let's hope the environment doesn't change, so we don't have to go over that again.


"existence" is nothing beyond a semantically superfluous term that is derived simply due to the nature of how we syntactically arrange our words.
Which is to say, "existence" has no real referent; its application cannot be reasonably denied.

an axiom in itself

but then with the above idea of "no real reference" (tangible determinative evidence) other than within the conscious observances of mankind, try the idea, that 'existence' by definition maybe bound to the consciousness of mankind.

Mod Hat:




You know what thread i intend to open up next?

Is 'existence' defining itself?


I strongly suggest you do not.

You have already posted that thread.
Feel free to begin a new thread on some other topic that is substantially different, but if you do start another thread where your thesis is that same one, it will be closed, and you will receive a warning.




no label of disciplines, for me, please...


If you don't like the jargon, then feel free to not post in the GP subforum.
In Philosophy, as in any domain, language must be precise and particular therein.

existance:
a word similar with "truth","life","soul" and so on,the similiarity is that these questions can easily be answered but people don like em cause there don have enough coolness on em so they waste their time using stupid holywood based logic to answer them and ending up with an equally retared question "do i exist?" with a serious look and feel like they too are playin in a movie they wanted so much.
In other words ppl wanna feel cool and not find out the truth.

Mod Hat:




I strongly suggest you do not.

You have already posted that thread.
Feel free to begin a new thread on some other topic that is substantially different, but if you do start another thread where your thesis is that same one, it will be closed, and you will receive a warning.





If you don't like the jargon, then feel free to not post in the GP subforum.
In Philosophy, as in any domain, language must be precise and particular therein.




i thought i answered this one too.

Glaucon are you removing posts?

is this thread going to be closed?

i thought i answered this one too.


No need to answer; you can read what I have said.



Glaucon are you removing posts?


I've deleted posts that were offtopic.



is this thread going to be closed?

Not yet.

Again, all of this talk is offtopic.
Keep the meta-discussions out of the thread.

No need to answer; you can read what I have said.

something about I STRONGLY ADVISE

that is off topic too





I've deleted posts that were offtopic. gee thanx




Not yet.

Again, all of this talk is offtopic.
Keep the meta-discussions out of the thread.

or so then back to the thread......



If existence is "all that is"...... DOES mankind live within existence?

'Ex-ist-ence' is anything that relates to that which used to be, strictly speaking.

'Ex-ist-ence' is anything that relates to that which used to be, strictly speaking.

but if time is part of that total (existence)

then is what is to come, already existing?

but if time is part of that total (existence)

then is what is to come, already existing?

The logic in this hypothesis is unclear.

"If Time is part of Total
Then future (what is to come) already (now, this moment) exists."
This is what I get from the hypothesis. If this is wrong please correct me.

When we see a distant galaxy, we know that we don't see it's already existing lights, we see its past.

We also know that everything has past, nothing pops up suddenly, and future existence is only possible with an history. This is how this universe works. Total existence should also be clearly separated from the levels of "co-existence". My future existence depends on my environment, technological capability of my species, and the current features and/or capability of my species. My environment starts with this planet and it has its own co-existence problems within solar system and Milky Way. And Milky Way has its own co-existence issues with its cluster. However, this structure will not share any existential common area or future with a galaxy from a distant cluster which is going further away from this environment faster than speed of light.

Time, you say, exists within Total. Yet spaces are temporal and independent from each other. Of course everything is bound to the rules of this universe as a single common existential reality. But observations tell us that our universe has not a "closed" shaped geometry, otherwise we would see the back of our heads (our own planet) when we observe the galaxy.

No, future does not already exist. The possibilities of current existence and their relationalities do exist. Nobody could say that the result of human existence was already there when Big Bang occured 13.7 Billion year ago. Nobody could say that the result of computerized human civilization was already there when life started on this planet. The possibilities were there, yet any kind of accident (a giant asteroid or anything else with a great impact you can imagine) could have stopped us to emerge; and for similar reasons we can go extinct (non-existing species) any time, just as dinosaurs went extinct.

“ Originally Posted by thinking
yes

and in and out of existence ”


what is that?

(without hypothetical usage) ie.... some theory of utter dimensions (or heaven and hell; theological belief)

chiral condensate

where particles pop into and out of existence in space

existence and what it is , really shouldn't be questioned in the end

existence just is and it has many forms and states

what existence is , is really about the micro and the macro of the physical things that make up existence and the necessary manifestation thereof

The logic in this hypothesis is unclear.

"If Time is part of Total
Then future (what is to come) already (now, this moment) exists."
This is what I get from the hypothesis. If this is wrong please correct me.

i thought i asked a questio there.

you can hypothesize, if you like


When we see a distant galaxy, we know that we don't see it's already existing lights, we see its past.

a fine hypothesis

and well known too



We also know that everything has past, nothing pops up suddenly, and future existence is only possible with an history. This is how this universe works. Total existence should also be clearly separated from the levels of "co-existence". My future existence depends on my environment, technological capability of my species, and the current features and/or capability of my species.

then why is the world going thru a global stress, based on a religious group changing history to fit the idea, they recieved in prophecy (jeruselem; building a temple on the mount for messiah)

Why is the world allowing a belief of things to come, run the political policies in the middle east?


Time, you say, exists within Total. Yet spaces are temporal and independent from each other. Of course everything is bound to the rules of this universe as a single common existential reality. But observations tell us that our universe has not a "closed" shaped geometry, otherwise we would see the back of our heads (our own planet) when we observe the galaxy.

i like that analogy....... makes sense.


No, future does not already exist.

i prefer my feet flat on the ground too, but i ooooosually leave myself open to possibilites (quantum world)

existence and what it is , really shouldn't be questioned in the end

OK.... so in the end

but right now, we all have questions


existence just is and it has many forms and states

whatever that means


what existence is , is really about the micro and the macro of the physical things that make up existence and the necessary manifestation thereof

one sentence 'shouldn't be questioned'

the in another "necessary manifestations"


well... i tink the necessity is in 'asking questions' (to learn)

that be MY Thinking!

chiral condensate

where particles pop into and out of existence in space

that is the description, as they following the laws (pauli)

doesn't mean, THAT definition is true

Perhaps read a bit more on BEC, Cooper pairing and what the "chiral model" is. (meson bonding).....


that idea you claim is from the modeling, (simulations) not the evidence.

ie.... it is based on the idea that 2 particle points of mass cannot combine, but they observe the single unit by the 2 (combined) or the cancellation, by the 2 (i liken it to waves on a pond, the crests combine, the opposing trough and crest appear to cancel; basic)

look up why photons are NOT observed as combining to increase an amplitude; it is based on the same error

the consciousness of presence of a physical or virtual thought or thing is existence...(according to me)....i am a newbie pls correct me if i am wrong somewhere ...

i enjoy the esoteric (thanks for the twist of mind, and welcome to the show)


the consciousness of presence of a physical or virtual thought or thing is existence...(according to me)....i am a newbie pls correct me if i am wrong somewhere ...

thoughts exist, think of them like colors of rainbow, but until imposed to mass (the clouds), the experience is often undescribable

sure the virtual idea virtually exists (daVince saw a plane and drew it) but could he put it to mass as nicely as boeing does?

the knowledge to describe the observance (idea) is often still in the evolving process

just as each experience life (the "i am"), but how to define it, is the chore

imagine one day, when each kid can understand what they are, as puppies

i wanted to add aadzy...... you not wrong, EVER, for inquiring in my opinion

ie... you just as interested as every human being on the earth (was or will be at one time)


just be fair, and you, we, all.. can evolve a bit, perhaps with YOUR insite and ideas

the consciousness of presence of a physical or virtual thought or thing is existence...(according to me)....i am a newbie pls correct me if i am wrong somewhere ...

as well , is the consciousness of the constiuents that of which you are made and the then awareness that these are then made in the Universe

then and only then can you understand , existence

as well , is the consciousness of the constiuents........

the constituents?

like the coherance of the body of cells?

kind of like each having a part as if 'duties' all contributing to the survival of the whole?

can you help with these 'ideas'?


that of which you are made and the then awareness that these are then made in the Universe

then and only then can you understand , existence


what kind of philosophy can be 'labeled,' for the depth of your 'thinking'?



"into the rabbit hole of comprehension"

“ Originally Posted by thinking
as well , is the consciousness of the constiuents........ ”


the constituents?

like the coherance of the body of cells?

kind of like each having a part as if 'duties' all contributing to the survival of the whole?

can you help with these 'ideas'?

sure


what I mean is the constiuents that which gives the living body the ability to form in the first place , all minerals necessary to build a living thing , any living thing

and be consciously aware that this is true

you see the thing is , as much as life is life , it still needs to draw in what the Universe provides in the way of a place to manifest , such as our planet and the constiuents for life provided by the Universe in order for life to manifest

do you see my point ?

sure


what I mean is the constiuents that which gives the living body the ability to form in the first place , all minerals necessary to build a living thing , any living thing

mass, energy, in time

when i hammer, i returned to atoms and energy rather than adam and eve

seems the rules must apply there before all else

then to comprehend how each work, then it seems life is just the energy upon mass that enables any to even combine to make molecule number 1




and be consciously aware that this is true

make sense

teach the little ones at a real young age, and life can be understood will little doubt

“ Originally Posted by thinking
sure


what I mean is the constiuents that which gives the living body the ability to form in the first place , all minerals necessary to build a living thing , any living thing ”


mass, energy, in time

when i hammer, i returned to atoms and energy rather than adam and eve

seems the rules must apply there before all else

then to comprehend how each work, then it seems life is just the energy upon mass that enables any to even combine to make molecule number 1

look , simply put , life needs the Universe in order to exist

there is nothing complicated about this really

look , simply put , life needs the Universe in order to exist i agree

Happiness is knowing once we are; we are ONE.




there is nothing complicated about this really

exactly

as often; the complication is getting through the education

“ Originally Posted by thinking
look , simply put , life needs the Universe in order to exist ”


i agree

Happiness is knowing once we are; we are ONE.

yes

but religions , of all sorts , get in the dam way

“
there is nothing complicated about this really ”


exactly

as often; the complication is getting through the education

and once one gets through the education , is the ability to apply this education practicably

so that we understand the implications and then truely understand " what is existence "

and once gets through the education , is the ability to apply this education practicably

so that we understand the implications and then truely understand " what is existence "


mass, energy, time; the total as 'existence' (some call it "the trinity" of one)

the transistion to me is like the ankh, transcribed into a mathematical script

mass: energy affixed in time (the loop)

ie.... all this stuff i talk about is grounded, not just, philosophically observed

)

“ Originally Posted by thinking
and once gets through the education , is the ability to apply this education practicably

so that we understand the implications and then truly understand " what is existence "


mass, energy, time; the total as 'existence' (some call it "the trinity" of one)

or energy , mass , movement ( hence time )


the transition to me is like the ankh, transcribed into a mathematical script

so ?


mass: energy affixed in time (the loop)

affixed in time ?

explain further


ie.... all this stuff i talk about is grounded, not just, philosophically observed

so mathematics then defines existence , to you

which is superior , simply the ability to Reason without mathematics or just mathematics

what came first the physical Universe or mathematics ?

or energy , mass , movement ( hence time ) no need to move to take time

to measure alone, takes time

there is no mass or energy without time




so ? not sure what you asking

don't ask for the name




affixed in time ?

explain further

what did E=mc2 share when describing the fission of mass? that when mass, is separated, that after the parts are added, the difference is light (energy)




so mathematics then defines existence , to you
can define? ....absolutely!



which is superior , simply the ability to Reason without mathematics or just mathematics reason supported by math


what came first the physical Universe or mathematics ?

that's a tough one

Mod Hat:

Sorry guys, the duet you're running is going nowhere tediously.
Try formulating your comments in a clear fashion instead of disjointed single sentence suppositions.

Thread Closed.