Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Vijaydevani]

In order for something to exist, there must be that which isn't the thing.

Why?

[Neznac]

In order for something to exist, there must be that which isn't the thing.

Why?

Indeed. I'm trying to wrap my head around it. "To be" means "to be distinguished from something other than." If something cannot be distinguished, set apart, differentiated from something else then that "thing" does not exist. Yet many things do not exist yet they can be differentiated from something other than themselves, like pink unicorns! So that proposition does not work the same backwards. But the universe is NOT merely one thing as opposed to something else - it is everything that exists, yet the concept of existence does not and in fact cannot apply to it. Why? Because 'being' implies occupying space and enduring through time and yet the universe must "extend" beyond the concepts of time and space therefore 'existence' is not conceivable with reference to the all-of-everything. Hmmm?

[Vijaydevani]

(Nested quote removed.)


Why?

Indeed. I'm trying to wrap my head around it. "To be" means "to be distinguished from something other than." If something cannot be distinguished, set apart, differentiated from something else then that "thing" does not exist. Yet many things do not exist yet they can be differentiated from something other than themselves, like pink unicorns! So that proposition does not work the same backwards. But the universe is NOT merely one thing as opposed to something else - it is everything that exists, yet the concept of existence does not and in fact cannot apply to it. Why? Because 'being' implies occupying space and enduring through time and yet the universe must "extend" beyond the concepts of time and space therefore 'existence' is not conceivable with reference to the all-of-everything. Hmmm?

But again, for the universe to not exist, it would have to be distinguished from everything that exists.

[Neznac]

But again, for the universe to not exist, it would have to be distinguished from everything that exists.

OK. So then in order for the universe to NOT EXIST it would have to be distinguished from itself (e.g. everything that exists), but also in order for it to EXIST then it would have to be distinguished from itself . . . I don't know? It's a conundrum of some kind. Maybe 'existence' just can't be applied to the universe except as a word in the reflective sense??

[Wooden shoe]

Neznac.

The universe exist because we exist. We are on the inside and are unable to see out. So any logic which applies to anything that exists as part of the universe does not apply in us trying to understand that which we are part off. We are on the inside and are only able to understand fellow parts which make up this universe.

Regards, John.

[Platos stepchild]

In order for something to exist, there must be that which isn't the thing.

Why?

Here's why: suppose I hand you a coin. You'd then say the coin exists. Let's look at that word, to exist, a little more clearly, a cognate, of which is the word is to exit. When you exit a building, in a very real sense you've distinguished yourself from it. You are seen to exist apart from it. Similarly the coin now exists apart from my hand, having given it to you. (as well as existing apart from everything else). You can discern the coin's existence by seeing it surrounded by everything which-is-not-the-coin

But what is the universe, as the totality-of-all-possibilities surrounded by? By definition, no possibilities can exist apart from the universe. (We could say that no possible thing has exited the universe). Anything you might contrast the universe with is the universe. Hence, by the strict definition of the word to exist, the universe doesn't.

[Vijaydevani]

But again, for the universe to not exist, it would have to be distinguished from everything that exists.

OK. So then in order for the universe to NOT EXIST it would have to be distinguished from itself (e.g. everything that exists), but also in order for it to EXIST then it would have to be distinguished from itself . . . I don't know? It's a conundrum of some kind. Maybe 'existence' just can't be applied to the universe except as a word in the reflective sense??

Or maybe existence just is and is not really dependent on it being distinguishable from something else?

-- Updated May 16th, 2015, 1:07 am to add the following --

(Nested quote removed.)


Why?

Here's why: suppose I hand you a coin. You'd then say the coin exists. Let's look at that word, to exist, a little more clearly, a cognate, of which is the word is to exit. When you exit a building, in a very real sense you've distinguished yourself from it. You are seen to exist apart from it. Similarly the coin now exists apart from my hand, having given it to you. (as well as existing apart from everything else). You can discern the coin's existence by seeing it surrounded by everything which-is-not-the-coin

But what is the universe, as the totality-of-all-possibilities surrounded by? By definition, no possibilities can exist apart from the universe. (We could say that no possible thing has exited the universe). Anything you might contrast the universe with is the universe. Hence, by the strict definition of the word to exist, the universe doesn't.

That would mean that existence is dependent upon an observer. If the observer does not exist, neither does existence. And that is just not true. The universe has existed for 13.7 billion years. Observers came into existence only very recently.

The ability to distinguish is something that life forms have. This ability developed very recently. The universe existed before that too.

[Atreyu]

My claim that the universe doesn't exist isn't predicated upon our inability to perceive the whole. What I'm saying is that the universe, as the totality of all possibilities precludes the possibility of there being that from which the universe might then be distinguished. In order for something to exist, there must be that which isn't the thing. However, by definition there can never be that from which the universe might then be distinguished. Ergo, the universe (as opposed to it's various constituents) cannot exist.

Your error is highlighted in red. I oppose that assumption, and assert that it has no foundation whatsoever. What your are saying only applies to our ability to perceive and/or cognize it. If we cannot distinguish something from what it is not, then we cannot isolate its existence, either via direct perception or even cognition. But that doesn't mean that it cannot have a real existence outside the boundaries of our perception or cognition. In fact, many philosophers, myself included, assert that in fact only that which is not within the purview of the human mind/experience could have any real and objective existence....

[Wayne92587]

Neznac wrote; Because 'being' implies occupying space and enduring through time and yet the universe must "extend" beyond the concepts of time and space therefore 'existence' is not conceivable with reference to the all-of-everything. Hmmm?

Wayne wrote: Neznac you logic is wanting.

Existence, Reality is not dependent upon our thought, conjecture, concerns, theory concerning it, existence, reality, being, existing independent of the Mind; However the Truth, our knowledge of Reality that we speak of must be readily apparent, measurable as to Space-Time, otherwise the existence of our knowledge of Reality, existence, being, is Uncertain.

Vijaydevani wrote; #243

for the universe to not exist, it would have to be distinguished from everything that exists.

Wayne wrote;

The Universe encompasses the Reality of Everything that does and does not exist in the material sense of the word, however Universe being Infinite, all is not measurable as to location and momentum, not readily apparent in Space-Time; the infinite parts of the Universe being distinguishable from everything that exists, or at least should be.

[Neznac]

Wayne wrote: Neznac you logic is wanting.

I was just wondering how Plato's Stepchild reasoned out his conclusion about the universe NOT being able to exist. If it doesn't make sense then perhaps the directive is incorrect?

[PoeticUniverse]

The universe as we know it began 13.573947389201376 years ago, which had to be a transformation that occurred in the greater Cosmos, which I'll call 'What IS', or simply, 'IS'.

How come I'm using the present tense? Because, first, 'IS' cannot have a beginning because something cannot become of Nothing, and, second, all that 'IS' goes into the making of the 'IS' of the next Planck time 'now', with nothing left over, because the Planck time duration and the Planck size extent are quantized, meaning that there is no absolute continuity of these quantities going on in a and of themselves (plus, there is no history and no future). Thanks to Leo for this theory.

Given that our universe could form, at any old 'time' or 'place', then so could others.

Now, what is the basis of what 'IS'? Something like Possibility/Potential, for nothing is needed to back that up.

[Platos stepchild]

(Nested quote removed.)

OK. So then in order for the universe to NOT EXIST it would have to be distinguished from itself (e.g. everything that exists), but also in order for it to EXIST then it would have to be distinguished from itself . . . I don't know? It's a conundrum of some kind. Maybe 'existence' just can't be applied to the universe except as a word in the reflective sense??

No; we're not distinguishing the universe from itself, in order to say it doesn't exist. The point is that there's nothing from which to distinguish the universe, thus establishing it's existence. Suppose you were to distinguish the universe from, say a single electron. That won't work because of so-called charge conjugation. It'd still be part of the universe. In fact, no subset of the universe can be isolated so as to be distinguishable from it. We must remain true to the meaning of existence; and, that meaning precludes the totality of all things and of all possibilities from existing (though it is real enough).

[Neznac]

No; we're not distinguishing the universe from itself, in order to say it doesn't exist. The point is that there's nothing from which to distinguish the universe, thus establishing it's existence.

I should have said, "IF we wanted to say that the universe exists, then it would be like distinguishing the universe from itself" so I was basically agreeing with you. But to say that the universe does not exist may be just as impossible as saying that it does exist?

[Harbal]

no possibilities can exist apart from the universe.

Here, you seem to be saying that the universe exists.

Hence, by the strict definition of the word to exist, the universe doesn't.

But here, you seem to be saying that it doesn't

Is there something metaphysically profound to be learnt here or are you just hedging your bets?

[Platos stepchild]

no possibilities can exist apart from the universe.

Here, you seem to be saying that the universe exists.

Hence, by the strict definition of the word to exist, the universe doesn't.

But here, you seem to be saying that it doesn't

Is there something metaphysically profound to be learnt here or are you just hedging your bets?

Maybe I need to have another go, at this. Let's imagine that we're able to step outside of the universe. It's there, and we're here. In that case, we could point over there and say "Look; the universe exists. There it is!" But we can't step outside of the universe. We can only step from here-to-there, within the universe. There's no outside, from which something which isn't the universe might then exist. And with nothing there, beyond the universe, it simply cannot exist.

I know it's counter-intuitive to say that, while the various components of the universe do exist, the totality of existence doesn't. But, a set needn't have the same property as does it's elements. The set of all books isn't a book. The set of all existing things doesn't, itself exist. An interesting consequence of the universe's non-existence is that, by not existing it has no beginning nor ending. (Non-existence, by default neither begins or ends). Therefore, dare we make the logical inference: the universe is eternal.