Let's Get Metaphysical Baby

[saltydawg]

The idea of giving existence attributes other than what is objectively perceived or conceived is the problem.

Seems to me that since existence is unexplained, different people can objectively perceive the nature of existence to mean different things. Existence does have attributes so it is logical for people to classify such objectively perceived attributes.

Let me ask you a simple question. Do you think that existence (our current space, time, energy, and matter matrix) as any meaning or purpose?

[randerizer]

Seems to me that since existence is unexplained, different people can objectively perceive the nature of existence to mean different things. Existence does have attributes so it is logical for people to classify such objectively perceived attributes.

Let me ask you a simple question. Do you think that existence (our current space, time, energy, and matter matrix) as any meaning or purpose?

How can anyone perceive the nature of existence? You're asking people to define existence, when that definition requires some way of distinguishing existence from what it is not. What is nonexistent?

I'd say "existence is all" is really the best I can come up with. Or "existence INCLUDES this."

[Guisslapp]

Seems to me that since existence is unexplained, different people can objectively perceive the nature of existence to mean different things. Existence does have attributes so it is logical for people to classify such objectively perceived attributes.

Let me ask you a simple question. Do you think that existence (our current space, time, energy, and matter matrix) as any meaning or purpose?

What do you mean by "any meaning or purpose"? That questions presupposes that a rational consciousness preceded existence. If you ask the question you are already assuming there is in fact a creator to choose between existence and nonexistence.

[Guisslapp]

dangit

Salty - can you explain this graph?

[Guisslapp]

I'll give you a clue - the left side looks like gravitational singularity (volume of space getting increasingly smaller) and the right sure looks like the volume of space is increasing at a faster rate with respect to time (acceleration of space).

[Guisslapp]

BTW, I think this is what happened to the prime mover argument last time. We get sidetracked everytime.

[saltydawg]

Salty - can you explain this graph?

No, what is it?

[saltydawg]

What do you mean by "any meaning or purpose"? That questions presupposes that a rational consciousness preceded existence. If you ask the question you are already assuming there is in fact a creator to choose between existence and nonexistence.

Since you don't think that there is a creator your answer most be that existence has no meaning or purpose.

[Guisslapp]

I would not give existence the attribute of "having meaning or purpose." I think the phrasing is important in view of the last series of posts.

[saltydawg]

How can anyone perceive the nature of existence? You're asking people to define existence, when that definition requires some way of distinguishing existence from what it is not. What is nonexistent?

I'd say "existence is all" is really the best I can come up with. Or "existence INCLUDES this."

I've already stated that our existence is unexplained. That it cannot be defined. However, existence has attributes that we experience every day in a subjective/objective fashion. It's like the Mona Lisa painting. No matter where a person stands in the room, they will say the Mona Lisa is looking directly toward him or her. Of course it is an illusion. Just like our perceptions of the world are illusions although they appear very real to us.

[saltydawg]

I would not give existence the attribute of "having meaning or purpose." I think the phrasing is important in view of the last series of posts.

So what you are saying is that you see no meaning or purpose in existence although there might be some?

[Guisslapp]

I cannot perceive or rationally conceive of any meaning or purpose in existence.

[saltydawg]

I cannot perceive or rationally conceive of any meaning or purpose in existence.

Now, that wasn't so hard, was it?

[Guisslapp]

No, what is it?

It shows that time goes to negative infinity as the volume of the universe approaches a volume of zero (gravitational singularity). The volume never gets to zero but gets smaller and smaller (the further you go back in time, the slower the universe expanded). As you continue beyond the present space accelerates (gets larger faster than before). In this scenario, existence has ALWAYS existed. There would be no "before" existence. This seems consistent with what you have described of the Big Bang.

[Guisslapp]

Now, that wasn't so hard, was it?

Sorry, I figured you must be asking a different question because I had assumed we had answered that one already. You see how the question "why does existence exist?" automatically presupposes a creator, right?