[Guille]

about post 8,

For the paradox to work you require something that doesn't yet (or we don't have knowledge of) exist: a prove of your non-existence theory to be wrong.

Just for self determination, I'm going to try and find it myself

[Marketa]

There is no paradox.

I've been thinking about paradoxes a bit, and they occur ALWAYS, in ANY theory, but they depend on point of view. Paradoxes are very common part of our Universe: we ourselves are paradoxes. According to my thinking we "consist" of (on some level) two parts (but of course you can "divide" us to many more parts, but I mean the two moments we are "between" in present) and these two parts CANNOT exist together at the same time - but we can see them as one - present. It sounds weird, but I think it's absolutely true. It's like points of view - there can be two absolutely different opinions which are illusory contradictary - but from other point of view - "higher" point of view - you can find conditions (a theory, a system,...) when they are both true.

[dustin_archibald]

What happens if I conceive of the concept "There is a disproof for the Theory of Non-Existence"?

I messed that up!
It should say:
What happens if I conceive of the concept "There is a disproof for the Theory of Existence"?

[dustin_archibald]

Originally Posted by <<>>

No. This is something you think of streight away, but, imagen we would have all our lives lived in the oppsoite direction of time. Then, we would say the universe startedby something we would probably call also the BB (if the universe is inflatioanry). Then it grew, and started to be smaller again. here, there is no difference because of the theory (inflatioanry) used. Well, in this case, the actual definitions of cause effect would be the same as know. The difference isn't the meaning of the word, but the actual cases of it. It would still be cause-effect because B (cause) would interact with A (effect). But sene in the other arrow, A (cause) would interact with A (effect).

I believe the nature of these objects (A and B) would be the determining factor. It's possible that an object exists that is not affected no matter how time flows. Its nature is simply to affect. The same can be said of an object whose nature is simply to be affected but never affect regardless of time flow. An important distiction is that it isn't neccesary for both conditions to be true in order for something to exist. It may happen that they are both true but both aren't required.

Originally Posted by <<>>

From your post 8, it's also interesting how you sort of get into another person's body and talk about your theory as "a theory" or "the theory" not "my theory".

I didn't notice that. It's a good thing to do so I'll keep doing it. Thanks for pointing it out.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by dustin_archibald

I believe the nature of these objects (A and B) would be the determining factor. It's possible that an object exists that is not affected no matter how time flows. Its nature is simply to affect. The same can be said of an object whose nature is simply to be affected but never affect regardless of time flow. An important distiction is that it isn't neccesary for both conditions to be true in order for something to exist. It may happen that they are both true but both aren't required.

Ok. Now, because there could be a AND and not only an OR, I think you should write, to be more specific, both:
1. affects something.
OR/AND
2. is affected by something.

[dustin_archibald]

I see, that's easier to understand. I didn't realize that was I refering to the binary OR operator, which operates like "A OR B OR both".

[dustin_archibald]

Originally Posted by Marketa

There is no paradox.

I've been thinking about paradoxes a bit, and they occur ALWAYS, in ANY theory, but they depend on point of view. Paradoxes are very common part of our Universe: we ourselves are paradoxes. According to my thinking we "consist" of (on some level) two parts (but of course you can "divide" us to many more parts, but I mean the two moments we are "between" in present) and these two parts CANNOT exist together at the same time - but we can see them as one - present. It sounds weird, but I think it's absolutely true. It's like points of view - there can be two absolutely different opinions which are illusory contradictary - but from other point of view - "higher" point of view - you can find conditions (a theory, a system,...) when they are both true.

If what you say is true then under what point of view would this theory not be paradoxical?

[Guille]

Dustin,

I've been thinking, and whiles reading Wittgeinstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus I noticed that reality trully is existence and non-existence. So you can say your theory is a theory about reality.

[dustin_archibald]

I am unfamiliar with this person's work. Google will probably help with that.

I wonder if anyone's claimed these theories yet. Maybe I can get rich off them !!

[dustin_archibald]

Version 2

Dustin Archibald's Theory of Non-Existence
Something is said to not exist if:
a) it affects nothing
AND
b) nothing affects it

Dustin Archibald's Theory of Existence
Something is said to exist if:
a) it affects something
AND/OR
b) something affects it