Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Existence

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

What is your evidence that there can be? Also provide your definition of "universe".

When people say universe, I assume "our" universe as in the stars, planets, natural laws, matter as we know it, etc...

I have no direct proof of multiple universes, and I'm not sure anyone does.

If I am able to grasp the idea that there could be another universe with it's own natural laws, then isn't the idea of universe different from existence?

Any other universe would be in existence. Existence would exist with or without our universe.

If the term universe is the same as existence then wouldn't the following sentences make sense?:

Something came into universe today.

Something came into the existence today.

Even if there is one universe and it's definition is everything that is "in existence" , you have two different ideas there - existence and everything that is in it.

(I don't want to get hung up on the multiple universe thing here. I can fully appreciate the idea that if we find another "something" that has it's own natural laws it is part of the "universe" as a whole. I don't see that the concept of "everything in existence" is the same as the concept of existence itself)

Let me know your thoughts, thanks.

Edited by $$$
Link to comment
Share on other sites

$$$, what you are saying is no different than someone saying "I believe in leprechauns and even though there is no evidence of them I will continue to believe in them and therefore they exist."

So much for reason and empirical fact.

Objectivists believe in the real world, the tangible, provable, knowable universe.

You apparently believe that belief makes something true, that possibility, however remote unlikely or incompatible with the known laws of the universe makes reality, those laws and those facts of existence mailable.

It doesn't

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I am able to grasp the idea that there could be another universe with it's own natural laws, then isn't the idea of universe different from existence?

What kind of different natural laws can you imagine?

A world without identity?

Remember that imagination is not a method of cognition.

I can imagine Obama doing a 160 degree turn and becoming the greatest president ever but me being able of imagining it doesn't make it possible. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

$$$, what you are saying is no different than someone saying "I believe in leprechauns and even though there is no evidence of them I will continue to believe in them and therefore they exist."

So much for reason and empirical fact.

Objectivists believe in the real world, the tangible, provable, knowable universe.

You apparently believe that belief makes something true, that possibility, however remote unlikely or incompatible with the known laws of the universe makes reality, those laws and those facts of existence mailable.

It doesn't

You have confused me, or I have confused you.

Is existence the same as the universe?

If existence exists does it exist independently of a universe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What kind of different natural laws can you imagine?

A world without identity?

Remember that imagination is not a method of cognition.

I can imagine Obama doing a 160 degree turn and becoming the greatest president ever but me being able of imagining it doesn't make it possible. :lol:

I could imagine a universe similar to ours except that gravity acts at a different speed?

I'm confused on the concept of existence and universe being the same thing. If universe implies everything in existence, does that mean universe and existence are different?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have confused me, or I have confused you.

Is existence the same as the universe?

If existence exists does it exist independently of a universe?

I am not confused by the implications of what you said when you said

This seems completely wrong to me. Existence is not universe. There is only one existence, while there potentially could be many universes.

And when David asked for your proof of another universe you said

When people say universe, I assume "our" universe as in the stars, planets, natural laws, matter as we know it, etc...

I have no direct proof of multiple universes, and I'm not sure anyone does.

If I am able to grasp the idea that there could be another universe with it's own natural laws, then isn't the idea of universe different from existence?

The implication is that your imagining an alternate universe brings such a thing into being, that the conceptualization of it makes it real. That, as any reasonable person knows is impossible.

Are you telling me you can not or do not distinguish between an entity (the universe) and a concept (existence)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I see it, the Big Bang wasn't about the creation of the universe as a whole, merely about the creation of some type of causal chain. The sum of all which was before, but not any particular part alone, can be taken to be the cause of this single event. After that event parts can still continue to influence the future from the past but only in a manner that's allowable given this prime event, for it too is a cause.

Imagine that a whole universe existed before the Big Bang, but that at one point something changed. That change occured because of a critical point in the prior existence. At that point SOMETHING (but I'm not sure what, nor is anybody at this point in time sure what) changed.

Space and Time did not exist THE SAME as they do now, though they necessarily existed in SOME form.

Now about Existence. IF you accept causality you MUST accept existence, and that identity is a corrolary of it. Furthermore, to speak of nonexistence is not to speak of anything, for to speak of the universe as nonexistence is to imply a universe in the first place, and in fact to speak of the nonexistance of anything you must speak of the nonexistance of that thing as if that thing and existence, or the lack thereof, referred to something. But at the root of that thing, and in particular that you refer to it, is just an assertion of existence. In fact, when people say the universe doesn't exist, they mean that the state of the universe is that it doesn't exist, which is a contradiction in terms.

You can't have identity without existence, and you can't have it the other way around either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The implication is that your imagining an alternate universe brings such a thing into being, that the conceptualization of it makes it real. That, as any reasonable person knows is impossible.

Are you telling me you can not or do not distinguish between an entity (the universe) and a concept (existence)?

My understanding of the term universe was incorrect. I now accept that it means, all that exists. When scientists talk about multiple universes, I have to assume they are using the term universe incorrectly, or are stating incorrectly that there can be multiples of "all that exists".

If Existence exists (it does) then it has identity. If the universe exists (it does) it has identity. The two identities are different?

(Of course , if the universe is all that exists, and existence exists, then existence can not exist without the universe.)

I know I'm having trouble trying to ask my question...

Is existence a real different thing from the universe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When people say universe, I assume "our" universe as in the stars, planets, natural laws, matter as we know it, etc...
Then you mean "the universe at the present time", not all of the universe. And possibly, depending on the structure of the universe, "in just this dimension of the universe", not all of the universe. At much earlier times, if say stars amd neutrons did not exist, that would be a different universe by your definition. That isn't how we understand the concept "universe", nor does it correspond to standard / traditional definitions of "universe" as "everything that exists".
If the term universe is the same as existence then wouldn't the following sentences make sense?:

Something came into universe today.

Something came into the existence today.

Neither makes sense, because entering implies being outside and then becoming inside. Since "universe" means "all that exists", you cannot exist and be separate from the universe. Even in the non-movement sense of "come into", the idea only makes sense as a statement of a change in something's nature, i.e. "something came into existence qua hotdog today", implying that before, it was a bucket of pork.
Even if there is one universe and it's definition is everything that is "in existence" , you have two different ideas there - existence and everything that is in it.
How are these different? Or are you focusing on the ambiguity of the word "existence", meaning both "all that exists" and "the fact of existing" (which might refer to just one existent).
I don't see that the concept of "everything in existence" is the same as the concept of existence itself)
The word "existence" is ambiguous, and refers to two different (albeit related) concepts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...