Is There Any Way to Confirm Your Existence?

[ucf-fisher21]

A Theory of Everything would have an explanation.

If you mean an explanation using mathematics, then there might be a problem. Mathematics would be included in 'A Theory of Everything' if 'Everything' truly means everything in existence.

I'm thinking about this and I know it might sound crazy to some:

Existence and Non-Existence are opposite, but related in that way. If you want to explain these ideas using mathematics (which scientific laws are based on), couldn't you compare Existence to infinity and Non-Existence to zero? But how would you explain the concepts of infinity and zero without using more mathematics? It seems like the only way to explain Existence or Non-Existence is to use descriptive language at best.

*I compared Existence to infinity because: if there is absolutely nothing, then something can't come out of that. So if there is something, then it must have always existed.

 

[minorwork]

If you mean an explanation using mathematics, then there might be a problem. Mathematics would be included in 'A Theory of Everything' if 'Everything' truly means everything in existence.
If you want to explain these ideas using mathematics (which scientific laws are based on), couldn't you compare Existence to infinity and Non-Existence to zero?

Scientific laws are based on mathematics, you say? Certainly math is a useful tool. Empirical evidence should guide the math.

"Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself any more." Einstein

"To the extent that the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not true; and to the extent that they are true, they do not refer to reality." Einstein

"I do not deny the importance of math, however, it's just that I think that science should come first! Abstract math seems to be the lubricant for hammering square pegs into round holes." Einstein

And of the human experience:

Once Einstein said that the problem of the Now worried him seriously.
He explained that the experience of the Now means something special for man, something essentially different from the past and the future, but that this important difference does not and cannot occur within physics. That this experience cannot be grasped by science seems to him a matter of painful but inevitable resignation. I remarked that all that occurs objectively can be described in science: on the one hand the temporal sequence of events is described in physics; and, on the other hand, the peculiarities of man's experiences with respect to time, including his different attitude toward past, present and future, can be described and (in principle) explained in psychology. But Einstein thought that scientific descriptions cannot possibly satisfy our human needs; that there is something essential about the Now which is just outside of the realm of science.

If any thinks he is going to end this discussion, he may want to consider himself a closet solipsist. Or a moderator that can really end it.

 

[ucf-fisher21]

minorwork,

the Einstein quotes you posted are very interesting and logical ideas.

All my posts have been logical and respectful towards others. I have replied to other people's replies in this topic and they have replied to mine, with everyone being respectful towards one another. I don't appreciate you throwing personal accusations at me. I don't deserve this.

 

[rewebster]

----Re: I exist; but, do you exist?

There's a problem that does sometimes happen as a person becomes 'more' self-aware, in that, the world seems to be circling around 'them'---meaning, they become self-centered and/or overly self-conscious for awhile.

This is usually transitory if the 'self' develops properly. It may takes years to develop through. A lot of TV commercials are concerned/made from this perspective--in that, 'what we are making and selling is made for 'you' to make 'your' life better'--appealing directly to the ego.

When the 'self' becomes 'aware' that other 'selfs' exist around them, it usually indicates a sign of maturity, and can progress where empathy (an awareness of the 'feeling' of other 'selfs') can be incorporated as knowledge that the 'self' in only one of many 'selfs' existing around them, all with different needs.

It goes from, 'I exist; and, therefore, I recognize that you exist, also'.

 

[minorwork]

minorwork,

the Einstein quotes you posted are very interesting and logical ideas.

All my posts have been logical and respectful towards others. I have replied to other people's replies in this topic and they have replied to mine, with everyone being respectful towards one another. I don't appreciate you throwing personal accusations at me. I don't deserve this.

You are correct. My last sentences did not in any way apply to you but toward another that after 10 months of silence on the subject posts with the idea of ending it. I should have been more specific. Apologies. And to the intended.

On the subject of theories and queries where math plays such a big role there is LIGO. In spite of having never detected a gravity wave, proceeds to announce properties of the pulsar in the Crab Nebula based on the absence of gravity wave detection.

Bad science but I can see the need to say something to keep jobs and funding. What is this to do with mine or thine existence? If basic properties of the very small and very large are to be seen as pregnant with the roots of consciousness, science must be clear in distinguishing between what humans are capable of knowing and that about which our knowledge purports to model. Test, test, test. I did not understand clearly your statement on math as the basis for science. I, probably mistakenly, figured you were putting too little emphasis on the empirical data.

 

[minorwork]

----Re: I exist; but, do you exist?

There's a problem that does sometimes happen as a person becomes 'more' self-aware, in that, the world seems to be circling around 'them'---meaning, they become self-centered and/or overly self-conscious for awhile.

This is usually transitory if the 'self' develops properly. It may takes years to develop through. A lot of TV commercials are concerned/made from this perspective--it that, 'what we are making and selling is made for 'you' to make 'your' life better'.

When the 'self' becomes 'aware' that other 'selfs' exist around them, it usually indicates a sign of maturity, and can progress where empathy (an awareness of the 'feeling' of other 'selfs') can be incorporated as knowledge that the 'self' in only one of many 'selfs' existing around them, all with different needs.

It goes from, 'I exist; and, therefore, I recognize that you exist, also'.

Very pragmatic. Sometimes, in hindsight, I fail the maturity test. Hoping for foresight.

The fall of '85 my son became 2 years old. I had heard of the "terrible 2s" but was determined to keep an open mind. There is something to it though. This seems the beginning of that solipsist little being that I have to deal with for the contracted period. A little god demanding, at his pleasure, the just deserts of his being in the physical. Wow. Even now I am still in a limited form of shock.

 

[rewebster]

Very pragmatic. Sometimes, in hindsight, I fail the maturity test. Hoping for foresight.

The fall of '85 my son became 2 years old. I had heard of the "terrible 2s" but was determined to keep an open mind. There is something to it though. This seems the beginning of that solipsist little being that I have to deal with for the contracted period. A little god demanding, at his pleasure, the just deserts of his being in the physical. Wow. Even now I am still in a limited form of shock.

do you mean, 'the loosing of 'self' for a greater calling'?

 

[minorwork]

do you mean, 'the loosing of 'self' for a greater calling'?

He was a surprise. You use an interesting choice of words. My shoulders ached from the load of responsibility for a while after the announcement of his imminent arrival, not to mention when he was delivered. I retain a bit of my prior solipsist life even today. A commercial for rum describes me. I still have a little "Captain" in me.

Your term, 'the loosing of self', I save for a more private mystic experience I'll call spiritual traveling. http://www.spiritualtravel.org/spiritualtravel.html

By the way, is your spelling "loosing" intentional? I would think you meant "losing" but I can't see if you're grinning or not.

 

[rewebster]

2. loose - turn loose or free from restraint; "let loose mines"; "Loose terrible plagues upon humanity"
let loose, unleash
let go, let go of, release, relinquish - release, as from one's grip; "Let go of the door handle, please!"; "relinquish your grip on the rope--you won't fall"

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/loosing

"relinquish your grip on the 'self'--you won't fall"




To me, 'losing' would be the loss of self---which isn't the case

 

[minorwork]

2. loose - turn loose or free from restraint; "let loose mines"; "Loose terrible plagues upon humanity"
let loose, unleash
let go, let go of, release, relinquish - release, as from one's grip; "Let go of the door handle, please!"; "relinquish your grip on the rope--you won't fall"

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/loosing

"relinquish your grip on the 'self'--you won't fall"

To me, 'losing' would be the loss of self---which isn't the case

Gotcha. Agreed. Expanding. Presupposing the inhibition of mind's functioning by tiring mind to the point of collapse by intense concentration, and thus experiencing reality, the noumena, without the brain/mind's classification/interpretation systems running, would I be correct in saying I was 'losing' my mind, and 'loosing' self from the mind/body?

 

[rewebster]

I think " 'losing' one's mind " is like the standard def. of losing the reality of the situation---loosing one's self in 'a' situation, as in most concentration or with your child is the adapting of the 'self'

---I guess, it depends on 'how tired the mind is'---whether it's 'loosing' or 'losing'


Archimedes was 'lost' in concentration to 'not know' and comprehend the 'reality' of the situation--

http://www.schoolforchampions.com/biographies/archimedes2.htm

 

[ucf-fisher21]

Because of the nature of our existence, in our eyes (our conscience), I think we all question our existence and hope there is meaning to our existence. We want to believe that we will never become non-existent. I think this is human nature. Since we can't PROVE if there is 'meaning' to our existence (our conscience), we should all just enjoy life and hope for the best.

Personally I don't like thinking too much about this existence stuff. It's confusing

 

[rewebster]

Because of the nature of our existence, in our eyes (our conscience), I think we all question our existence and hope there is meaning to our existence. We want to believe that we will never become non-existent. I think this is human nature. Since we can't PROVE if there is 'meaning' to our existence (our conscience), we should all just enjoy life and hope for the best.

Personally I don't like thinking too much about this existence stuff. It's confusing

'Thinking' about proving whether or not there is 'meaning to our existence' is one path you can take, or not take, too.

 

[baywax]

Personally I don't like thinking too much about this existence stuff. It's confusing

And frustrating

 

[Eric DMC]

How can you be sure that you really exist?

Yah, how do you know you really exist! How do you know what you remember from yesterday really happened, they are simply memories. How can you be so sure your memories are real and not fabricated by some unknown force beyond our comprehension? Say you have a scar on your body and you say that’s proof that your memories are true, it could simply be a memories made up to explain away the scar.

 

[minorwork]

Yah, how do you know you really exist! How do you know what you remember from yesterday really happened, they are simply memories. How can you be so sure your memories are real and not fabricated by some unknown force beyond our comprehension? Say you have a scar on your body and you say that’s proof that your memories are true, it could simply be a memories made up to explain away the scar.

The keeping of a dream journal will reveal things, at a later date, of which you will be amazed of your own writing. Or in a daily journal describe what you did at a particular place and event. A year later write down, by memory, the scene as you did the first time. Compare the two. Whoa. Is continuity thru time a feeling?

 

[baywax]

Yah, how do you know you really exist! How do you know what you remember from yesterday really happened, they are simply memories. How can you be so sure your memories are real and not fabricated by some unknown force beyond our comprehension? Say you have a scar on your body and you say that’s proof that your memories are true, it could simply be a memories made up to explain away the scar.

Yeah, gee, you're already starting to fade from my memory.

 

[Unthinkable]

Am I a figment of your imagination? What would you be doing if you weren't thinking?...Thinking is imagination...

 

[minorwork]

Am I a figment of your imagination? What would you be doing if you weren't thinking?...Thinking is imagination...

You have to start somewhere. What is real? What is illusion?

 

[LightbulbSun]

I exist but do you exist?

I ask you the same question.

 

[ValenceE]

I am sure of my own existence as I do have a sense of self. But the question that I am asking is a rather vague one. Do you exist? If the answer is no then the very purpose of asking questions from the non existent is useless. Even all the solutions you give to me are useless. Even the scriptures like the Bible, the Gita also are of no help(afterall even they do not exist.)

What if I am seeing a virtual movie, in which all you people are virtual softwares. All the things that I believe in, all the past that has been told to me, even my own body, everything is just an illusion. I am talking of a supermatrix in which only one man is trapped in an illusion and everything else in the matrix is fake.

Now the question is, "Is there any way to confirm your existence?"

Hi,

'guess the easiest way to say yes is that "I", existing entity as "i" type this reply, can ask myself the very same question... "Is there any way to confirm your existence"...


regards, VE

Edit: sorry Lightbulb... just barged in...

 

[minorwork]

Just don't croak OK? Gee, I like being here and when you go, I'm gone. So take good care of yourself. It's such a done deal I wonder that you can get life insurance.

 

[ValenceE]

Just don't croak OK? Gee, I like being here and when you go, I'm gone. So take good care of yourself. It's such a done deal I wonder that you can get life insurance.

nice metaphor... i don't want to die either... not now... so much to take care of...



VE

 

[minorwork]

And atone for.

 

[ValenceE]

wow, you know how different the meaning of 'atone' is between french and english ...?

french : lacking force, vitality...

english: to become reconciled, in harmony...

VE

 

[ValenceE]

'guess they DO reconcile at infinity... where nothing matters...


VE

 

[minorwork]

I am amazed that a frenchman and englishman do not war over the word 'livre' or 'book' when some Jew and some Islamic war on each other over, what the word 'God'?

 

[Jake Kenner]

What if all that really exists is empty space-the void-nothingness?

How can an observable physical universe be constructed out of empty space?

Read Lenny Susskind’s new book: The Black Hole War. The “answer” is the holographic principle of quantum gravity. The observable world is a holographic animation that is defined on viewing screens of quantized space-time. This apparent three dimensional world is defined on a two dimensional surface. The holographic principle says that all the information for the world is encoded on the viewing screen with one bit of information per Planck area. That information is energy that flows in an energy gradient from big bang event to black hole. The ordered flow of information is reflected in the second law of thermodynamics as energy flows from more ordered states to less ordered states. Every observable state is constructed on the viewing screen as the quantum state of potentiality is reduced to an actual state. A quantum state reduction defines an observational event. Those observable states are holographically animated on the viewing screen over a sequence of ordered events. The viewing screen of quantized space-time is the matrix. Susskind even called the first holographic theory he discovered “Matrix Theory”. The viewing screens are embedded within empty space. If string theory is right then empty space is ten dimensional and super-symmetric. The holographic principle basically says that empty space is quantized into surfaces of quantized space-time that act as viewing screens that project holographic images back to focal points of perception. The laws of physics are the computational rules that arise as empty space is quantized into surfaces of quantized space-time and encodes information. The laws of physics are all a consequence of the symmetries of empty space.

Listen to this quote from Einstein: “I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists”. Now listen to Spinoza: “That eternal and infinite being we call God, or Nature, acts from the same necessity from which It exists”. The holographic principle basically says that empty space acts from the same necessity from which it exists as it is quantized into surfaces of quantized space-time that act as viewing screens that project holographic images to focal points of perception. The holographic images are animated over an ordered sequence of observable events. The necessity from which empty space acts is the symmetry inherent in its existence. But who is the observer?

Listen to what Einstein has to say about this: “The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility. Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe”. But what is the nature of that comprehending spirit that is manifest in the laws of the universe? Could that comprehending spirit be empty space? Could empty space be the nature of consciousness? Is the focal point of perception a point in empty space? Is the observer a focal point of perception in empty space?

The holographic images projected from the viewing screen are coherently organized. Just like the holographic images that are created from the coherent light emitted from a laser, holography is only possible because of critical phenomena or spontaneous symmetry breaking. Symmetry breaking is the reason why information is coherently organized on the viewing screen. In some sense all holographic images are a consequence of broken symmetries. But empty space is perfectly symmetric. Does perfectly symmetric empty space perceive and recognize itself in the projected holographic images it constructs out of itself? Does the viewing screen of quantized space-time mirror the nature of empty space back to itself as broken symmetries? If empty space is the nature of consciousness then does that mean that the perceivable physical universe as it is holographically defined on viewing screens of quantized space-time only exists within consciousness? Does everything that appears to happen in the perceivable physical world only play in the imagination of empty space?

 

[minorwork]

Conscious. The seat of consciousness is the void. In the void, the grain of sand, is known.

From: Peirce's Pragmatic Theory of Inquiry page 86 http://books.google.com/books?hl=en...=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result#PPA86,M1

For Peirce the entire universe is a massive evolving form. It began infinitely long ago from a field of tychism or pure chance. Effectively the universe was nothing but a vast seething chaos with no order whatsoever. But through complete chance a pattern was started, what Peirce calls habit or continuity, Whereby one event begins to repeat itself. Steadily it began to form a general law (although still really a habit). These were the first laws of the universe, which had to evolve into being. And this is what Peirce means by synechism.

The first thing to happen was the habit of forming habits.

Existence is the forming of habits? Does this help answer the topic's question?

 

[IamWhatIam]

'I exist, but I doubt your existence'.This statement has great deal of dependency on how you define 'I' and 'existence'. Let's talk about 'I' first. When you said - "I exist", did you mean 'I' as body or mind or memory or intellect or perception?

If 'I' is any of the above, it is not even worth pondering over existnce, because all of these have an end. Body is chnaging, so is mind,memory,intellect and even perception. What use is there in finding out about existence unless we know what we really are searching for?

Body is just inert, a composition of organs and a biological product which can not think. If body can think,it would have avoided many accidents and many robberies (when we are asleep, body is still awake). We are observing bodily chnages and hence we are NOT the body.

Mind is nothing but bunch of thoughts. Moreover it is changeful. We are
everytime observing changes in mood and mindset which means we are not even mind. Same case with memory, intellect and perception. Dont we say
our 'perception' changes? We are none of these..who are we then?

We are the basis of all these. We are that consciousness which is aware of all these changes but it itself is unknown to any of it's byproducts. This consciousness,being the primal thing, it can not be known by mind or any organs. Its like trying to find infinite using the finite.

 

[Dadface]

Since his demise Descartes still has an earthly existence,he was processed at the meat factory.I just received this message.
I'm pink therefore I'm ham.
Is there no way we can shut him up?

 

[tabloid]

for sure,we can't all exist at the same time.One person exists at a time,which means that no one is really "free" except the one who exists

 

[baywax]

'I exist, but I doubt your existence'.This statement has great deal of dependency on how you define 'I' and 'existence'. Let's talk about 'I' first. When you said - "I exist", did you mean 'I' as body or mind or memory or intellect or perception?

If 'I' is any of the above, it is not even worth pondering over existnce, because all of these have an end. Body is chnaging, so is mind,memory,intellect and even perception. What use is there in finding out about existence unless we know what we really are searching for?

Body is just inert, a composition of organs and a biological product which can not think. If body can think,it would have avoided many accidents and many robberies (when we are asleep, body is still awake). We are observing bodily chnages and hence we are NOT the body.

Mind is nothing but bunch of thoughts. Moreover it is changeful. We are
everytime observing changes in mood and mindset which means we are not even mind. Same case with memory, intellect and perception. Dont we say
our 'perception' changes? We are none of these..who are we then?

We are the basis of all these. We are that consciousness which is aware of all these changes but it itself is unknown to any of it's byproducts. This consciousness,being the primal thing, it can not be known by mind or any organs. Its like trying to find infinite using the finite.

Whom are you talking to?

 

[Brilliant!]

Why does it matter? You'll always be conscious of the presence (whether real or not) of others. If you decide they don't exist, and avoid them, then you accept there is something to avoid. If you decide they don't exist, but continue to interact regardless, then life hasn't changed drastically. Your outlook has certainly changed, but it has no effect on those who don't exist, and life goes on.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I don't exist. However, it is a comfort to learn that you do.