Thursday, December 29, 2011

On Existence/Existing

Here is a subject that many pass over everyday, in every conversation, yet never full understand; existence. I’ve been thinking about this topic lately, and have come to a few conclusions concerning; what existence is, and what does it mean to exist. What I’ve found is that not many of my concepts were all that novel, in fact, it is possible to say that none of them are actually new ideas, but rather they are subjective views of objective principles. But as i said, this subject is in every aspect of life, therefore it is not a difficult one to grasp.

Existence is the polar opposite of non-existence. this is the simplest way to begin to explain what existence is. For non-existence is more readily known than existence. Non-existence, I’ll define as; anything one doesn’t know, has never experienced, and can’t perceive with any sense. This should make non-existence not at all difficult to understand for all we our, our minds, are a configuration of knowledge, experience, and senses; and this is a simple understanding of the mind, but a useful view in this discussion. The proposition for existence is than thus; Non-existence does not exist, for if it existed than it would cease to be non-existence and become existence; existence can be known, experienced, and sensed; non-existence can’t be known, experienced, or sensed, therefore non-existence can not exist. This may sound very trivial, but it is fundamental; which will be more apparent when the features of existence are stated.

For a better understanding of non-existence, it maybe best to go over some concepts the get very close to non-existence, but never truly become it. The first stems from logic and is called negation. Negation in logic is equivalent to the English word not, which is the simplest way to define negation. When we say something is negated, we mean to say that it does not exist. But this is not true non-existence, for the thing which does not exist has been initiated, in a sense, in existence. For no one will deny that, for negation to operate, something existing, in a sense, must be negated.

(Footnote: When i say “in a sense,” I’m speaking of forms of communication, such as speech, writing, signs, etc. These are contingent on our senses, for there is not other way to experience them. And, of course, we only know and understand that which we have experienced. These are just simple ways to explain the mind and brain, and mind and body duality, which I’ll discuss at a latter time)

Another concept related to non-existence is a vacuum. By vacuum, I’m speaking more in scientific terms, and mainly the study of physics. In physics, the terms “non-existence” or “nothing” would relate to a vacuum, and a vacuum is space void of matter. Matter in physics refers to particles or atoms, both essentially the same thing; the smallest known objects that exist in the universe. These objects, in physics, are the building blocks of the universe, thus of existence. At the subatomic level, however, these objects become nothing more than pure energy. So it is impossible to be rid of all particles in a real vacuum, for every vacuum itself is a force, and therefore necessitates a particle. Also, complete empty space is still space qua space, and space when empty still contains potential, volume, and substance. Empty space, in a sense, is the purest form of existence, but not of reality.

(Footnote: Physics as i perceive it is the most fundamental principles of nature, more specifically the nature of reality. For though it is just a theory, and it may deserve a more prominent position, it explains many different motions of matter with extremely high precision. Its major flaw stems from its greatest asset, mathematics. Because reality is extremely precise in every motion, for every action is accompanied by a reaction, every cause produces an effect; this produces a constant and perfect one to one proportion. Concerning reality and quantity, this will generate very high numbers, which never even start in one to one proportions. Perhaps and example is needed in a later time.)

In Rene Descartes’ The Principles of Philosophy he states this about non-existence; “With regard to a vacuum, in the philosophical sense of the term, that is, a space in which there is no substance, it is evident that such does not exist, seeing the extension of space or internal place is not different from that of body. For since from this alone, that a body has extension in length, breadth, and depth, we have reason to conclude that it is a substance, it being absolutely contradictory that nothing should possess extension, we ought to form a similar inference regarding the space which is supposed void, viz., that since there is extension in it there is necessarily also substance.” This is in relation to the previous statements concerning empty space.

Existence and non-existence, or existence in general, is very much a paradox. However, the beginning of its whole being has no middle ground, which is, nowhere in existence can one find non-existence because non-existence does not exist. This by necessity must be the first premise of existence.

No comments:

Post a Comment