Existence

\Ex*ist"ence\, n. [Cf. F. existence.] 1. The state of existing or being; actual possession of being; continuance in being; as, the existence of body and of soul in union; the separate existence of the soul; immortal existence.

2. Continued or repeated manifestation; occurrence, as of events of any kind.

"Existence really is an imperfect tense that never becomes a present." - Friedrich Nietzsche

Our existence is defined by what we in acuality 'remember' from the previous second. You can never truly percieve the moment or this second in time. Because before we can even think about it, it is already in the past.

Which brings me to another issue. How can we ever be sure that we "exist" at all ? Only by what we remember, and no one has a memory so perfect they can remember every second. Sometime between now and last year I could have popped in and out of existence several times and have no memery of it. In physics there are a handfull of things that exist for only a few hundred picoseconds (1 trillionth of a second) then are once again non-existent in our universe. Who's to say this cant happen with larger amounts of matter.

awesome topic idea, Helios :)

Along the same lines, what about people with schizophrenia, alzheimer's, or any other related mental illness? I worked at a nursing home for several years, and many of the alzheimers patients ended up having everything they ever read in a book or saw in a movie turn into their own memory of previous "experiences." Because one resident believes wholeheartedly that she caught Moby Dick, does that mean she really did?

Well either one, they are just suffering from the mental illness they have. Or she in some way branched off into a parallel universe where "she" did actually catch Moby Dick. Reading the book may have opened her conscoiusness to that universe, so that she remembers the event. Now the book itself, the original writer of the book/movie in his imagination could have been 'imagining' a real event happeniing in that parallel universe. (I know i just made that sound really weird and confusing). Bu the fact that it happened to them specifically is almost too left field.

Occam's razor, Helios. The most logical explanation is correct, unless you can build the illogical explanation with evidence. Unless you can supply proof of someone travelling to a parallel universe, we have to assume they are mentall ill.

I am unsure of what you mean with existence. Descartes made a big step, stating Cogito Ergo Sum, I think thus I am, saying that because something is thinking, somethinge exists. Yes, we could be flashing in and out of existence before our brain detects it, but why? It is also possible that I flash out of existence every picosecond and have sex with millions of women, but why? What would be the basis of this, what law of physics would support it?

Also, if you are correct, what are the implications, does it really matter to us in our lives?

Mr U

I have recently learned there is a widespread theory in physics that says all matter (including humans) flickers in and out of existence at a rate of 10^23 times per second, its realted to Planck's constant.

Ive never liked Cogito Ergo Sum, just because you think does not mean you exist. My mp3 player and my computer exist as far I can tell yet they do no thinking.

Also, if you are correct, what are the implications, does it really matter to us in our lives?


Thats like asking if M-theory really matters to our lives. Only difference is that this does matter to you. I think flickering in and out of existence is something signifigant.

Ive never liked Cogito Ergo Sum, just because you think does not mean you exist. My mp3 player and my computer exist as far I can tell yet they do no thinking.


I suggest you do a thorough read on logic. A is as B does not mean B is as A. Just because Receptionist Suzy is an administrative worker does not mean all administrative workers are receptionist Suzy. Cogito Ergo Sum remains to be disproven.

M-theory? Einstein allowed us to travel into space and he has helped us into knowing that Newtonian ways of travelling outside of our solar system is unlikely. There are real-life applications to the string-theory as well, especially if we can utilise it for energy. Back to Einstein, he allowed us to build Nuclear Power Plants, again, how does this 'flickering' theory influence our lives?

Mr U

I suggest you do a thorough read on logic. A is as B does not mean B is as A. Just because Receptionist Suzy is an administrative worker does not mean all administrative workers are receptionist Suzy. Cogito Ergo Sum remains to be disproven.

I know not all things follow the same rules regardless of the subject. But people use this quote but fail to aknowledge the other 99.999...% of matter that exist in the universe that does not think. Thinking does not (and will not) prove the reality (or context) in which they are thinking. It is an impossible feat to prove that our reality is the real one

M-theory? Einstein allowed us to travel into space and he has helped us into knowing that Newtonian ways of travelling outside of our solar system is unlikely. There are real-life applications to the string-theory as well, especially if we can utilise it for energy. Back to Einstein, he allowed us to build Nuclear Power Plants, again, how does this 'flickering' theory influence our lives?

My mistake there on string theory. But why does the flickering have to have any influence on our lives ? I and probally many more people think its relevant that several times throughout the day they simply cease to exist from the universe. That in itself is very influential, it would change how many people view "existence".

We do exist. That much we know for sure and that we have proven. What we can not prove, however, is where the entity that is thinking exists, and whether anything we see, hear, feel (well, you get the point) exists. Descartes thus drawed the conclusion that we think in another realm than where we live, that the soul is something of a different plane. This, I see as a flaw in his logic, as he does not actually supply evidence for it. Sure, it is possible, but not neccesary.

What am I trying to say? Some things that don't think might exist. I only know that I exist because I think. The rest of you might just be imaginations of my brain. I might just be a brain being manipulated by a weird doctor in some 19th century lab, or this might be indeed the Matrix and nothing around me is indeed real.

Remember the MiaM theory? The same problem is applyable there. How can Neo know that the real world is real and not just another simulation. He faces the same problem as we do. He is unable to determine the reality of his environment with real proof.

From this we can draw that any theory based on our environment is fundamentally flawed, but if we state that the environment we live in is real, and is stable (we conclude that we live in the path through your Quantum roadnet where the solution is the regular, not the irregular one) we can form real theories and we can try to approximate reality and existence.

I'm not sure whether it would influence existence. I believe it would simply raise the question 'why?'. 'Why do we flicker in and out of existence, and where are we when we aren't here?'

Mr U

We do exist. That much we know for sure and that we have proven. What we can not prove, however, is where the entity that is thinking exists, and whether anything we see, hear, feel (well, you get the point) exists. Descartes thus drawed the conclusion that we think in another realm than where we live, that the soul is something of a different plane. This, I see as a flaw in his logic, as he does not actually supply evidence for it. Sure, it is possible, but not neccesary.

The 'brain in a vat' corroborates the idea that the mind can exist without the body. Yet how can a non-physical entity think? I firmly believe that the act of thinking is a physical process - sensory information (or other events) triggers neurons to fire within the brain that in turn excites various other areas and causes chemical reactions that consequentially affects what we think and feel. Therefore, an entity that does not physically exist cannot think.

Given infinite knowledge (or infinite computing power in our case) it is quite impossible to definitively prove that you are existing in the now as you understand it (I am writing this post at my desk on my computer while listening to music) or whether I am being harvested in a massive “human field” for my bioelectric energy and I am being fed information via an interface plugged into my head and spine.

The "now" does not exist, there cannot be a continum of 'now's'. If there were such a thing as now, we would be stuck in it for all eternity.
A now cannot follow a now. For example, if it were now, now. Then the only thing that could come after now would be another now.
When now is in existence, nothing can be moving.

The act of thinking as a 'physical process' is derived from flawed observations of a reality that might or might not be real. Thus, it can only be taken as a possibility, and not as proof that other possibilities do not exist.

The mere fact that chemical processes result into thinking does not rule out a non-physical soul. If my mind is indeed a non-physical being (Let's say a soul in some surreal plane), and is dreaming this, the chemical process theory is incorrect. It handles from the prime principle that our observed reality is real and stable, and if we are arguing existence, it is impossible to debate from that stance, as logic on such a level should be pure, unaltered by approximations and observerations.

Still, we are straying off-topic, and you could have read the above in a filosophy book; 'Why do we flicker in and out of existence, and where are we when we aren't here?'

Mr U

A string of nows? Wow, I guess that is just too deep for me. I think it just boils down to the fact that we are creatures of perception. We are the only animal that perceives things. One point you seem to miss is that inanimate objects or even lesser animals for that matter do not contemplate existence. So, DesCartes was saying that thinking is how we define our existence and not the existence of everything else. Still, his famous saying is extremely abstract, "I think therefore I am". One would have to delve into defining "think" and "am" in this statement. I'm not gonna do it because I am going to bed. :D

As far as the flickering thing, that's a bit out of my league. I don't really buy it. But then again, I don't ponder the reality around me as a matter of living my life. That is no way to BE if you know what I mean....... :D