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

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)

i got this from there

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:



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.

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.

i thought i answered this one too.

Glaucon are you removing posts?

is this thread going to be closed?

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


I've deleted posts that were offtopic.

Not yet.

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

something about I STRONGLY ADVISE

that is off topic too


gee thanx

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.

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.

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

i thought i asked a questio there.

you can hypothesize, if you like

a fine hypothesis

and well known too
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?

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

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

OK.... so in the end

but right now, we all have questions

whatever that means

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!

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