Thread: Does nonexistence exist?

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

But you're talking about it?


So it is a concept, and nothing more.

We talk about two different rectangles, and that they share a side. Drawing such a diagram, we see the shared side is no longer a side at all.

Now, they "share a side", and thus: They're united as one larger rectangle, and the sides disappear into each other. Thus, the sides no longer exist, and thus, no line to be drawn, unless we reconsider them as separate.

Originally Posted by really

We talk about two different rectangles, and that they share a side. Drawing such a diagram, we see the shared side is no longer a side at all.

Now, they "share a side", and thus: They're united as one larger rectangle, and the sides disappear into each other. Thus, the sides no longer exist, and thus, no line to be drawn.

So there isn't even a concept?

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

So there isn't even a concept?

Yeah, there is - that's the point. Concepts!


Now, let's examine Universal Mind's avatar. How is that physically possible?

Originally Posted by really

Yeah, there is - that's the point. Concepts!


Now, let's examine Universal Mind's avatar. How is that physically possible?

See I don't think we do have a concept of it.

Nor do we of "nonexistence". We may have an innacurate concept of surrounding features but not of the intrinsic nature of the things.

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

See I don't think we do have a concept of it.

Nor do we of "nonexistence". We may have an innacurate concept of surrounding features but not of the intrinsic nature of the things.

I think it is a concept, because it is a mentation; an automatic assumption of the dualistic mind. Sometimes the mind may even think its existence could be subject to non-existence, which is impossible. It's just a conceptual assumption.

I don't think there is any use asking the OP question, or even saying that "existence exists", because they are self-definitions and self-evident.

Originally Posted by really

I don't think there is any use asking the OP question, or even saying that "existence exists", because they are self-definitions and self-evident.

Agreed on this.

Rest is nothing.

Originally Posted by really

We talk about two different rectangles, and that they share a side. Drawing such a diagram, we see the shared side is no longer a side at all.

It's still a side even though the two rectangles together form another rectangle. There are proofs based on that principle.

Originally Posted by really

Now, let's examine Universal Mind's avatar. How is that physically possible?

Trick photography.

Just admit I had it right the first time.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It's still a side even though the two rectangles together form another rectangle. There are proofs based on that principle.

Yeah? Does it have anything to do with any "infinitely" small space between the two shapes?

My example was more metaphorical I guess.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Trick photography.

It would be interesting also to physically build something similar to that, yet have it as a visual illusion at a specific angle.

I smell a language fault here. Language creates unneeded double meanings which would inevitably form a paradox. "This statement is false." Y'dig? So I'll tackle this in a practical manner.

Nonexistence cannot be matter, energy, or thought. Anything that hasn't been thought of yet is nonexistent. The "quality" of nonexistence exists, in one aspect. The only reason nonexistence can be a quality of something that does not exist (this is where the paradox is), is because of how humans think.

This is going to make less sense than I originally intended. Whatever.

Originally Posted by Abra

I smell a language fault here. Language creates unneeded double meanings which would inevitably form a paradox. "This statement is false." Y'dig? So I'll tackle this in a practical manner.

Nonexistence cannot be matter, energy, or thought. Anything that hasn't been thought of yet is nonexistent. The "quality" of nonexistence exists, in one aspect. The only reason nonexistence can be a quality of something that does not exist (this is where the paradox is), is because of how humans think.

This.

Originally Posted by really

Yeah? Does it have anything to do with any "infinitely" small space between the two shapes?

There is nothing between them, but whether or not nothingness and infinite smallness are the same is something we debated very vigorously in two threads recently. Apparently, they are the same "thing".

Originally Posted by Abra

I smell a language fault here. Language creates unneeded double meanings which would inevitably form a paradox. "This statement is false." Y'dig? So I'll tackle this in a practical manner.

Nonexistence cannot be matter, energy, or thought. Anything that hasn't been thought of yet is nonexistent. The "quality" of nonexistence exists, in one aspect. The only reason nonexistence can be a quality of something that does not exist (this is where the paradox is), is because of how humans think.

This is going to make less sense than I originally intended. Whatever.

Yeah, I think you nailed it about as well as language will allow.

So, do we all agree on eternal life, then?

Once again I find myself living in my own paradigm.

Maybe some day people will look back at me in wonder. Hell, if that singularity thing is true maybe it'll be sooner rather than later.