11 hours ago, nonetheless said:

We can look at it another way head-on, as a direct challenge to the assumptions of what consciousness is.  How do you know anyone's viewpoint (including mine) posted here is from a human consciousness not advanced AI, in consideration of "indistinguishable from human answer."  How would you know this in the context of consciousness, human or machine ?

That's like saying "If a lion could speak/type english, then how would you know it's not human?".

Language is much more than just words, fundamentally, it requires a shared culture for true understanding.

12 hours ago, nonetheless said:

Hiding behind irony will not save you

 

You just string words together and pretend they are meaningful.

What did I say that was ironic? How was I hiding behind that? Save me from what?

You are simply trying to distract from the fact that I called you out for complaining about an ad hominem attack against yourself while you disparage an entire generation of people who are not even here to defend themselves.

I'm tired of your nonsense.

Edited January 23, 20233 yr by zapatos

On 1/23/2023 at 7:11 AM, dimreepr said:

That's like saying "If a lion could speak/type english, then how would you know it's not human?".

Language is much more than just words, fundamentally, it requires a shared culture for true understanding.

Language is not unique to humans, as animals have a language of their own, and human language itself is limited in its expression of nature.  I wouldn't be able to describe the accurate shade of any color to anyone.   Language is a recent arrival to human consciousness, according to a father of linguistics N Chomsky.  Wonder what the notion of consciousness was (did we even have it ?) before this new landmark in evolution.  Wonder what Plato's cave man would think about consciousness given what current AI's can do in the shadow

If consciousness is an emergent phenomena as in illusionism, and not baked into the physical reality from the beginning, as in pansychism, which would be more sensible to you, or any other theory

https://aeon.co/essays/what-if-your-consciousness-is-an-illusion-created-by-your-brain

It's a fuzzy, difficult enough subject that does not seem to merit certainty of religious instincts.  Various theories of exploration seem consistent in its own right under necessary assumptions

The notion of determinism, as related to consciousness seems an example of this get go assumption, that it was already deterministic in the beginning.  That free will is an illusion, its already been traced back to the singular origin.  Now is a resulting cascading interaction of deterministic states of priors.  Whether this is valid or not almost entirely depends on acceptance of this assumption, a belief part of human consciousness

Strangely this deterministic notion seems to be derived from the state religion of the failing roman empire of 4th century, the notion of "original sin" derived from roman slavery law, your father is a slave, you are a slave.  The modern version owing its determined state due these prior deterministic

As for "supernatural" this seems to be tied to similar belief driven instincts, whether physics of singularity (cosmic immaculate conception) or religion

Give us one big miracle we'll take care of the rest, observed R Sheldrake/T McKenna

Aside from gaining valuable insights of various schools of thought discussed, It would seem to me any notion of religious affinity to theories does not travel far.   Whether theories of consciousness, cosmology, or a quantum superposition of both.  According to current laws of physics, such confidence vector would rapidly lose its strength away from earth by square of distance.   If sent in photons, it would tire from red-shift, struggling to go beyond heliopause, maybe to alpha cantauri, just maybe to the edge of cygnus-x1.  In the "language" of math, sticking to such beginning assumption would result in a big vector swing of error where it goes

On 12/10/2022 at 6:28 AM, Adhanom Andemicael said:

Consciousness Always Exists

 

 

Part I:

Let us consider the following statements:

A. No situation exists.
B. Statement A is true.
C. A situation exists in which statement B is true.
D. A situation exists.(1)
E. Consciousness exists.
F. Statement A can never be true.

***

I claim that statement F is true.

***

Proof:

If A is true, B is true. If B is true, C is true.(2) If C is true, D is true. If D is true, A is false. Therefore, if A is true, A is false! (Contradiction!)

Clearly, A can never be true.(3)

Since A can never be true, it follows that F is true.

***

If A is never true, A is always false. A is never true. Therefore, A is always false.

If A is always false, D is always true. A is always false. Therefore, D is always true.

We conclude the following: A situation always exists.(4)

 

Part II:

 

Suppose a situation S persists for zero seconds. Then S exists for "no length of time."(5) If S exists for "no length of time," S never exists. Therefore, if S persists for zero seconds, S never exists.

Suppose a situation exists. Then the situation must persist for a duration greater than zero seconds. If a situation persists for a duration greater than zero seconds, a phenomenon of temporal passage must occur.(6) If a phenomenon of temporal passage occurs, consciousness must exist.(7) Therefore, if a situation exists, consciousness must exist.

 

***

If statement D is true, E is true. D is true. Therefore, E is true.

***

If statement D is always true, E is always true. D is always true. Therefore, E is always true.(8)

***

We conclude the following: Consciousness always exists.(9)

***

 

Notes:

1. The terms "situation," "scenario," and "state of affairs" are synonymous.
2. Suppose statement B is true. Then a situation exists. (The situation that exists is that statement B is true.)
3. It can never be the case that statement A is true.
4. A situation must always exist. (It can never be the case that "no situation exists.")
5. Zero seconds is "no length of time."
6. The word "persist" implies a passage of time. (Persistence is a dynamic process.)
7. The phenomenon of temporal passage (i.e., the phenomenon of time flow) is consciousness-dependent. (I discuss the relationship between time flow and consciousness in my paper "Temporal Passage.")
8. If a situation exists, consciousness exists.
9. Consciousness must always exist. (It can never be the case that "consciousness does not exist.")

 

 

Commercial website link removed

 

Adhanom Andemicael
andemicaela@yahoo.com

If consciousness always exists, where is it while a patient is in coma?   The patient can't experience things around him or her.   He or she loses his or her consciousness.  Where does consciousness go?  Can you explain that?

On 12/9/2022 at 11:28 PM, Adhanom Andemicael said:

Consciousness Always Exists

 

 

Part I:

Let us consider the following statements:

A. No situation exists.
B. Statement A is true.
C. A situation exists in which statement B is true.
D. A situation exists.(1)
E. Consciousness exists.
F. Statement A can never be true.

***

I claim that statement F is true.

***

Proof:

If A is true, B is true. If B is true, C is true.(2) If C is true, D is true. If D is true, A is false. Therefore, if A is true, A is false! (Contradiction!)

Clearly, A can never be true.(3)

Since A can never be true, it follows that F is true.

***

If A is never true, A is always false. A is never true. Therefore, A is always false.

If A is always false, D is always true. A is always false. Therefore, D is always true.

We conclude the following: A situation always exists.(4)

 

Part II:

 

Suppose a situation S persists for zero seconds. Then S exists for "no length of time."(5) If S exists for "no length of time," S never exists. Therefore, if S persists for zero seconds, S never exists.

Suppose a situation exists. Then the situation must persist for a duration greater than zero seconds. If a situation persists for a duration greater than zero seconds, a phenomenon of temporal passage must occur.(6) If a phenomenon of temporal passage occurs, consciousness must exist.(7) Therefore, if a situation exists, consciousness must exist.

 

***

If statement D is true, E is true. D is true. Therefore, E is true.

***

If statement D is always true, E is always true. D is always true. Therefore, E is always true.(8)

***

We conclude the following: Consciousness always exists.(9)

***

 

Notes:

1. The terms "situation," "scenario," and "state of affairs" are synonymous.
2. Suppose statement B is true. Then a situation exists. (The situation that exists is that statement B is true.)
3. It can never be the case that statement A is true.
4. A situation must always exist. (It can never be the case that "no situation exists.")
5. Zero seconds is "no length of time."
6. The word "persist" implies a passage of time. (Persistence is a dynamic process.)
7. The phenomenon of temporal passage (i.e., the phenomenon of time flow) is consciousness-dependent. (I discuss the relationship between time flow and consciousness in my paper "Temporal Passage.")
8. If a situation exists, consciousness exists.
9. Consciousness must always exist. (It can never be the case that "consciousness does not exist.")

 

 

Commercial website link removed

 

Adhanom Andemicael
andemicaela@yahoo.com

This does feel like the set theory issue. Others have done very well at explaining why there are issues with this logic so I won't get into that. I can only conceive of one possible way this could be correct but it relies on something that has not been shown by particle colliders. It would depend on if nothing was actually something, as in when a particle and an anti-matter particle collide, that some of the energy of this collision was not being converted into other forms of particles with heat and light and was some how being preserved by an unknown mechanism of the universe. While nothing inside the observable universe seems to be an empty vacuum, which of course nothing being a vacuum. What then would the 'void' be in the absence of the universe? One would have to figure out a way to prove that this void was actually consciousness itself or that the absence of the universe didn't exist.

I can conceive of a possible band aid to the set theory issue though. Physicists (and any physicists out there please correct me if I'm wrong) use math if it works, and if it doesn't work, they don't use the math. The band aid idea is: so what if numbers are an emotional process and don't exist in truth, which could be why math doesn't always work. Our logical processes have to use constructs sometimes to help us understand the truth, because the truth could be beyond our current understanding. Using constructs can lead us to the truth. The fact of the matter is, when math works, it just works.

On 1/27/2023 at 4:36 PM, Mc2509 said:

If consciousness always exists, where is it while a patient is in coma?   The patient can't experience things around him or her.   He or she loses his or her consciousness.  Where does consciousness go?  Can you explain that?

Let us suppose the following:

- O_A is a conscious observer that exists in spacetime.
- O_A is the only conscious observer that exists in spacetime.
- m1 is the moment "1:00 pm, Jan. 1, 2000."
- m2 is the moment "2:00 pm, Jan. 1, 2000."
- O_A ceases to be conscious at the moment m1.
- O_A does not regain consciousness until the moment m2.
- The time dimension of spacetime does not pass.
- When O_A is unconscious, O_A's subjective time does not pass.

***

Now let us consider the following statement:

S1: Between m1 and m2, O_A is unconscious for zero seconds.

***

I claim that this statement is true.^1,2,3

 

Notes:

1. No objective time (OT) passes between the moments m1 and m2. (The total amount of OT that passes between these moments is zero seconds.)

2. O_A's subjective time (STA) does not pass between the moments m1 and m2. (The total amount of STA that passes between these moments is zero seconds.)

3. I discuss unconsciousness in considerable detail in the thread "Time, Consciousness, and Unconsciousness."

 

 

Adhanom Andemicael

7 minutes ago, Adhanom Andemicael said:

The time dimension of spacetime does not pass.

Except, yes. It does.

All biological and chemical markers confirm this, even without the subject being accompanied by conscious awareness. 

On 2/20/2023 at 8:44 PM, EmDriver said:

This does feel like the set theory issue. Others have done very well at explaining why there are issues with this logic so I won't get into that. I can only conceive of one possible way this could be correct but it relies on something that has not been shown by particle colliders. It would depend on if nothing was actually something, as in when a particle and an anti-matter particle collide, that some of the energy of this collision was not being converted into other forms of particles with heat and light and was some how being preserved by an unknown mechanism of the universe. While nothing inside the observable universe seems to be an empty vacuum, which of course nothing being a vacuum. What then would the 'void' be in the absence of the universe? One would have to figure out a way to prove that this void was actually consciousness itself or that the absence of the universe didn't exist.

I can conceive of a possible band aid to the set theory issue though. Physicists (and any physicists out there please correct me if I'm wrong) use math if it works, and if it doesn't work, they don't use the math. The band aid idea is: so what if numbers are an emotional process and don't exist in truth, which could be why math doesn't always work. Our logical processes have to use constructs sometimes to help us understand the truth, because the truth could be beyond our current understanding. Using constructs can lead us to the truth. The fact of the matter is, when math works, it just works.

Re: Nothing

What is "nothing"?

By definition, "nothing" is a "situation." It is a situation in which all things are absent.

 

 

 

 

"Nothing" Cannot Exist

 

Let us consider the following statement:

S1: Nothing exists.

***

Statement S1 seems to contradict itself.

***

In order for a situation to exist, the situation has to persist.^1,2 A scenario in which "nothing exists" cannot persist.^3,4 Therefore, a scenario in which "nothing exists" cannot exist.⁵

***

"Nothing" cannot exist. Therefore, "something" must always exist.⁶

 

Notes:

1. Suppose a situation S exists. Then S must persist for a duration greater than zero seconds. (If S persists for zero seconds, S never exists.)

2. If a situation persists, a phenomenon of temporal passage (i.e., a phenomenon of time flow) occurs.

3. The premise "'nothing' persists" leads to a contradiction. (It leads to the conclusion that "nothing" does not exist. [See note no. 4.])

4. If "nothing" persists, time flow occurs. If time flow occurs, time exists. If time exists, "something" exists. If "something" exists, "nothing" does not exist. Therefore, if "nothing" persists, "nothing" does not exist.

5. The terms "situation," "scenario," and "state of affairs" are synonymous.

6. We know that "something" always exists. But what could this "something" be? (An eternal "mind" of some sort?)

 

 

 

Re: Nothing

 

If "nothing" is a "situation," we can ask the question "How long does 'nothing' persist?"^1,2

 

Notes:

1. Suppose S is a situation. The question "How long does S persist?" is a meaningful question.

2. The situation we call "nothing" can persist for at most zero seconds.

 

 

 

Re: Nothing (II)

 

By definition, "nothing" is a "situation."¹

However, it is a situation that cannot exist.

***

Let us consider the following statement:

S2: "Nothing" does not persist over time.

***

Statement S2 is true.²

 

Notes:

1. The "absence of all things" is a "situation." (It is a "state of affairs.")

2. The situation we call "nothing" can persist for at most zero seconds.

 

 

 

 

Re: Nothing (III)

If nothing exists, time does not exist.¹

 

Notes:

1. In order for time to exist, persistence has to occur for a duration greater than zero seconds.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Something" Always Exists ("Nothing" Never Exists)

 

 

Part I:

Let us consider the following statements:

A. No "thing" exists.
B. Statement A is true.
C. A situation exists in which statement B is true.
D. A situation exists.¹
E. A "thing" exists.
F. Consciousness exists.
G. Statement A can never be true.

***

I claim that statement G is true.

***

Proof:

If A is true, B is true. If B is true, C is true.² If C is true, D is true. If D is true, E is true.³ If E is true, A is false. Therefore, if A is true, A is false! (Contradiction!)

Clearly, A can never be true.⁴

Since A can never be true, it follows that G is true.

***

If A is never true, A is always false. A is never true. Therefore, A is always false.

If A is always false, E is always true. A is always false. Therefore, E is always true.

We conclude the following: A "thing" always exists.⁵

 

Part II:

Suppose a "thing" T persists for zero seconds. Then T exists for "no length of time."⁶ If T exists for "no length of time," T never exists. Therefore, if T persists for zero seconds, T never exists.

Suppose a "thing" exists. Then the "thing" must persist for a duration greater than zero seconds. If a "thing" persists for a duration greater than zero seconds, a phenomenon of temporal passage must occur.⁷ If a phenomenon of temporal passage occurs, consciousness must exist.⁸ Therefore, if a "thing" exists, consciousness must exist.

***

If statement E is true, F is true. E is true. Therefore, F is true.

***

If statement E is always true, F is always true. E is always true. Therefore, F is always true.⁹

***

We conclude the following: Consciousness always exists.¹⁰

 

Notes:

1. The terms "situation," "scenario," and "state of affairs" are synonymous.

2. Suppose statement B is true. Then a situation exists. (The situation that exists is that statement B is true.)

3. A "situation" is a "thing."

If a "situation" exists, a "thing" exists.

4. It can never be the case that statement A is true.

5. A "thing" must always exist. (It can never be the case that "no 'thing' exists.")

6. Zero seconds is "no length of time."

7. The word "persist" implies a passage of time. (Persistence is a dynamic process.)

8. The phenomenon of temporal passage (i.e., the phenomenon of time flow) is consciousness-dependent. 

9. If a "thing" exists, consciousness exists.

10. Consciousness must always exist. (It can never be the case that "consciousness does not exist.")

 

***

 

Clarification:

The premise "A is true" leads to a contradiction. (It leads to the conclusion that A and E are both true.)

The premise "E is true" does not lead to a contradiction. (It does not lead to the conclusion that E and A are both true.)

 

 

 

Adhanom Andemicael

On 3/2/2023 at 11:02 PM, Adhanom Andemicael said:

Re: Nothing

What is "nothing"?

By definition, "nothing" is a "situation." It is a situation in which all things are absent.

 

 

 

 

"Nothing" Cannot Exist

 

Let us consider the following statement:

S1: Nothing exists.

***

Statement S1 seems to contradict itself.

***

In order for a situation to exist, the situation has to persist.^1,2 A scenario in which "nothing exists" cannot persist.^3,4 Therefore, a scenario in which "nothing exists" cannot exist.⁵

***

"Nothing" cannot exist. Therefore, "something" must always exist.⁶

 

Notes:

1. Suppose a situation S exists. Then S must persist for a duration greater than zero seconds. (If S persists for zero seconds, S never exists.)

2. If a situation persists, a phenomenon of temporal passage (i.e., a phenomenon of time flow) occurs.

3. The premise "'nothing' persists" leads to a contradiction. (It leads to the conclusion that "nothing" does not exist. [See note no. 4.])

4. If "nothing" persists, time flow occurs. If time flow occurs, time exists. If time exists, "something" exists. If "something" exists, "nothing" does not exist. Therefore, if "nothing" persists, "nothing" does not exist.

5. The terms "situation," "scenario," and "state of affairs" are synonymous.

6. We know that "something" always exists. But what could this "something" be? (An eternal "mind" of some sort?)

 

 

 

Re: Nothing

 

If "nothing" is a "situation," we can ask the question "How long does 'nothing' persist?"^1,2

 

Notes:

1. Suppose S is a situation. The question "How long does S persist?" is a meaningful question.

2. The situation we call "nothing" can persist for at most zero seconds.

 

 

 

Re: Nothing (II)

 

By definition, "nothing" is a "situation."¹

However, it is a situation that cannot exist.

***

Let us consider the following statement:

S2: "Nothing" does not persist over time.

***

Statement S2 is true.²

 

Notes:

1. The "absence of all things" is a "situation." (It is a "state of affairs.")

2. The situation we call "nothing" can persist for at most zero seconds.

 

 

 

 

Re: Nothing (III)

If nothing exists, time does not exist.¹

 

Notes:

1. In order for time to exist, persistence has to occur for a duration greater than zero seconds.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Something" Always Exists ("Nothing" Never Exists)

 

 

Part I:

Let us consider the following statements:

A. No "thing" exists.
B. Statement A is true.
C. A situation exists in which statement B is true.
D. A situation exists.¹
E. A "thing" exists.
F. Consciousness exists.
G. Statement A can never be true.

***

I claim that statement G is true.

***

Proof:

If A is true, B is true. If B is true, C is true.² If C is true, D is true. If D is true, E is true.³ If E is true, A is false. Therefore, if A is true, A is false! (Contradiction!)

Clearly, A can never be true.⁴

Since A can never be true, it follows that G is true.

***

If A is never true, A is always false. A is never true. Therefore, A is always false.

If A is always false, E is always true. A is always false. Therefore, E is always true.

We conclude the following: A "thing" always exists.⁵

 

Part II:

Suppose a "thing" T persists for zero seconds. Then T exists for "no length of time."⁶ If T exists for "no length of time," T never exists. Therefore, if T persists for zero seconds, T never exists.

Suppose a "thing" exists. Then the "thing" must persist for a duration greater than zero seconds. If a "thing" persists for a duration greater than zero seconds, a phenomenon of temporal passage must occur.⁷ If a phenomenon of temporal passage occurs, consciousness must exist.⁸ Therefore, if a "thing" exists, consciousness must exist.

***

If statement E is true, F is true. E is true. Therefore, F is true.

***

If statement E is always true, F is always true. E is always true. Therefore, F is always true.⁹

***

We conclude the following: Consciousness always exists.¹⁰

 

Notes:

1. The terms "situation," "scenario," and "state of affairs" are synonymous.

2. Suppose statement B is true. Then a situation exists. (The situation that exists is that statement B is true.)

3. A "situation" is a "thing."

If a "situation" exists, a "thing" exists.

4. It can never be the case that statement A is true.

5. A "thing" must always exist. (It can never be the case that "no 'thing' exists.")

6. Zero seconds is "no length of time."

7. The word "persist" implies a passage of time. (Persistence is a dynamic process.)

8. The phenomenon of temporal passage (i.e., the phenomenon of time flow) is consciousness-dependent. 

9. If a "thing" exists, consciousness exists.

10. Consciousness must always exist. (It can never be the case that "consciousness does not exist.")

 

***

 

Clarification:

The premise "A is true" leads to a contradiction. (It leads to the conclusion that A and E are both true.)

The premise "E is true" does not lead to a contradiction. (It does not lead to the conclusion that E and A are both true.)

 

 

 

Adhanom Andemicael

Reminds of the difference between a function and an object.

Consciousness Always Exists

If consciousness does not exist, time flow does not occur.¹ If time flow does not occur, persistence does not occur. If persistence does not occur, nothing persists. If nothing persists, nothing exists.² Therefore, if consciousness does not exist, nothing exists.^3,4

***

Suppose "nothing" persists for zero seconds.⁵ Then "nothing" exists for "no length of time."⁶ If "nothing" exists for "no length of time," "nothing" never exists. Therefore, if "nothing" persists for zero seconds, "nothing" never exists.

***

Can "nothing" exist?

A necessary condition for "nothing" to exist is the following: "Nothing" must persist for a duration greater than zero.

Note however: "Nothing" cannot persist for a duration greater than zero.^7,8,9 The answer to the question posed above is therefore "no."

We must conclude that "nothing" cannot exist.

***

If "nothing" does not exist, "something" must exist. "Nothing" does not exist. Therefore, "something" must exist.

***

If "something" always exists, consciousness always exists. "Something" always exists. Therefore, consciousness always exists.¹⁰

***

Notes:

1. Time flow is consciousness-dependent.

2. Suppose nothing persists for a duration greater than zero seconds. Then nothing exists.

3. If consciousness is absent, nothing exists.

4. Existence is consciousness-dependent.

5. "Nothing" is a "situation." It is a situation in which all things are absent.

6. Zero seconds is "no length of time."

7. The situation we call "nothing" can persist for at most zero seconds.

8. The premise "'nothing' persists" leads to a contradiction. (It leads to the conclusion that "nothing" does not exist. [See note no. 9.])

9. If "nothing" persists, time flow occurs. If time flow occurs, time exists. If time exists, "something" exists. If "something" exists, "nothing" does not exist. Therefore, if "nothing" persists, "nothing" does not exist.

10. It can never be the case that "consciousness does not exist."

Adhanom Andemicael

8 minutes ago, Adhanom Andemicael said:

Consciousness Always Exists

If consciousness does not exist, time flow does not occur.¹ If time flow does not occur, persistence does not occur. If persistence does not occur, nothing persists. If nothing persists, nothing exists.² Therefore, if consciousness does not exist, nothing exists.^3,4

This seems, from the evidence, to be incorrect. There is evidence for say the age of the universe, or the age of the Earth, that long predates any evidence of consciousness.

In science it is evidence that counts.

26 minutes ago, Adhanom Andemicael said:

If consciousness does not exist, time flow does not occur.¹

Stated without evidence, and contradicts observation

26 minutes ago, Adhanom Andemicael said:

If time flow does not occur, persistence does not occur. If persistence does not occur, nothing persists. If nothing persists, nothing exists.² Therefore, if consciousness does not exist, nothing exists.^3,4

Part of the issue with your previous posts was that you never adequately defined your terms. Precision is required, or the argument is susceptible to errors like the equivocation fallacy

26 minutes ago, Adhanom Andemicael said:

Suppose "nothing" persists for zero seconds.⁵ Then "nothing" exists for "no length of time."⁶ If "nothing" exists for "no length of time," "nothing" never exists. Therefore, if "nothing" persists for zero seconds, "nothing" never exists.

If you rewrote this mathematically, it would be a division-by-zero error; the ratio diverges. The implication of that is you can’t draw a valid conclusion.

There are, of course, ways to have limits of such ratios converge, but it would be incumbent upon you to provide that rigor. The arguments presented are too sloppy.

Science based on word play.
Who would have thunk it ...

58 minutes ago, swansont said:

Stated without evidence, and contradicts observation

Part of the issue with your previous posts was that you never adequately defined your terms. Precision is required, or the argument is susceptible to errors like the equivocation fallacy

If you rewrote this mathematically, it would be a division-by-zero error; the ratio diverges. The implication of that is you can’t draw a valid conclusion.

There are, of course, ways to have limits of such ratios converge, but it would be incumbent upon you to provide that rigor. The arguments presented are too sloppy.

A "situation" is a "state of affairs."

***

"Nothing" is a "situation." It is a situation in which all things are absent.

***

"Nothing" can also be defined as a "state of affairs."¹ It is a state of affairs in which all things are absent.

***

A state of affairs in which "all things are absent" cannot persist. Such a state of affairs can persist for at most zero seconds.

***

Notes:

1. By "time flow," I mean "temporal passage" (i.e., the "passage of time").

***

Re: Existence:

Suppose an entity exists for zero seconds. Then the entity never exists.

***

I present a detailed argument in the following article:

A material entity can certainly exist. However, in order to exist, it has to endure for a length of time greater than zero. In the big bang description of the origin of time, time exists at all moments after the Big Bang but not at the Big Bang itself. (I refer to this moment of the Big Bang as T-0.) Consequently, there is no first moment of time in this description: Every moment of time is preceded by an infinite number of other moments that are still closer to T-0.

Similarly, a material entity cannot have a first moment of existence, since it has a total lifetime of only zero seconds at that initial moment. (A total lifetime of zero seconds means no lifetime at all, and implies non-existence.) However, the entity can be said to exist at all subsequent moments after the initial one. (I refer to this initial moment as t-0.) At these subsequent moments the entity has a lifetime greater than zero seconds. As in the big bang description, every moment of existence is preceded by an infinite number of other moments of existence; and these moments get closer and closer to t-0.

As indicated above, however, t-0 cannot be considered a moment of existence (the entity does not exist at the time t-0). Let us choose any moment after t-0 and call that moment "now." The entity persists over an infinite number of moments between t-0 and "now." It exists "now" as a result of this persistence--as a result of having endured until "now." Existence "now" is therefore preceded by an earlier process of persistence.

I wish to stress that our treatment of "existence" as a notion distinct from "persistence" is based on an erroneous assumption. The assumption is that existence is in some sense more fundamental than persistence. In this view, an entity that currently persists must have existed earlier; but an entity that currently exists need not have persisted earlier. An entity may exist "now" without having persisted prior to "now." In effect, in this view, the initial moment, t-0, is treated as a moment of existence: Existence is assumed possible at t-0 as well as at all subsequent moments. As explained above, however, existence cannot be defined at the initial moment, t-0.

The traditional view maintains that existence is more fundamental than persistence. We now know, however, that every "now" (after t-0) is preceded by a process of persistence. One could just as easily argue, therefore, that it is persistence which is more fundamental than existence.

Clearly, existence is not possible without persistence: An entity cannot exist if it does not endure. Persistence is therefore essential for existence--and it is just as fundamental as existence. In addition, existence "now" implies both prior existence and prior persistence. There is only one explanation that accounts for these facts in a self-consistent manner. Existence must be a process--the process of persisting.

Adhanom Andemicael

In my last post, I make reference to the moment "now." "Now" refers to any one of the infinite number of "nows"/"moments" that come after t-0. List-members should note that there are an infinite number of points ("nows") in the continuum between t-0 and any given "now." This infinite series of points/"nows" is a duration greater than zero.

Let us choose a particular "now" out of the infinite series of "nows" and call it "N." The entity described in my last post persists over the infinite series of "nows" between t-0 and N. Existence at "N" is therefore preceded by a process of persistence. The entity can be defined as "existing" at the "now" N (i.e., at the "moment" N)--but only if the entity has persisted for the duration between t-0 and N. (I reiterate here that "N" represents any one of the infinite number of "nows"/"moments" that are subsequent to t-0).

Adhanom Andemicael