[harmonygirl]

if we are defined on a quantum level as probably existing, then wouldn't all of those probabilities be equally valid?

[dustin_archibald]

Originally Posted by harmonygirl

wouldn't simultaneous existence and non-existence be the very nature of this dimension? (and hence reality for our purposes?)

I think perception plays a big part in this. For example, let's say we have a bacteria floating around in the Red Sea. I don't know of it, I can't see it, and I don't recognize any effect it has on anything. From my personal perspective that bacteria does not exist. To other things with direct contact with it, like sea creatures and other bacteria, it does exist. So, based on perspective, that bacteria does and does not exist.

If we take perspective out of the equation and look at existence as an logic principle then simultaneous existence and non-existence of a "thing" is not possible. That is, if we agree that Non-Existence is the opposite of Existence and that opposites cannot be equivilant.

Originally Posted by harmonygirl

if we are defined on a quantum level as probably existing, then wouldn't all of those probabilities be equally valid?

All probabilites greater than 0 are equally valid when discussing existence (something can't partially exist can it?) A non-existent item which exists has a probability of 0 though because a non-existent "thing" does not exist (by definition).

[dustin_archibald]

There's some debate on whether or not non-existent "things" exist but is it possbile for an existing "thing" to not exist?

[harmonygirl]

I guess what I'm saying is that if all particles exist or don't exist on a subatomic level, then the probability that any given particle exists is equal to the probability that it doesn't exist. If we are made up of these particles, then the things that exist also don't exist on an equally probable basis (or reality proscribed by an alternate probability curve). I guess I subscribe to the theory of simultaneous realities AND times. Hmmm....never thought about the way that would fit together before.

[dustin_archibald]

Originally Posted by harmonygirl

I guess what I'm saying is that if all particles exist or don't exist on a subatomic level, then the probability that any given particle exists is equal to the probability that it doesn't exist. If we are made up of these particles, then the things that exist also don't exist on an equally probable basis (or reality proscribed by an alternate probability curve). I guess I subscribe to the theory of simultaneous realities AND times. Hmmm....never thought about the way that would fit together before.

If we consider existence and non-existance to be opposites then their probabilities would be inversely propotional: as one probability goes up the other probability goes down.

[harmonygirl]

Yes at any one time, but when describing existence as a whole, shouldn't we take into account all of the probabilities? (without the time polaroid?) Wouldn't an accurate description of reality include simultaneous existence and non-existence, depending on whatever probability is appropriate at the time?

[subversion]

Originally Posted by dustin_archibald

There's some debate on whether or not non-existent "things" exist but is it possbile for an existing "thing" to not exist?

the same non-existent "thing" which exists is the same existing "thing" which does not exist, i.e. nothing
everything revolves around zero, according to my native friend

[michellemfry]

Subversion, I was reminded of something I had long forgetten about. Anti-bonding molecular orbitals, they are there yet ensure that nothing will be there.

Just another example that you can think about. I like them because they are real.

[baudrunner]

Anti-bonding molecular orbitals by definition imply that their integrity is of such a nature that further additions cannot be made to the molecule. This further suggests that they exist very much, as compared to sort of or almost.

Your existence-nonexistence ideas are related to our inability to pinpoint position, spin, orientation etc. let alone predict these properties, according to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, but we have visible evidence of their existence in matter, so they exist. Simultaneousness infers the ability to see particles in real-time, but that's impossible, again according to Heisenberg. The closest we have come is to scatter them about after bombarding them in collider esperiments.

I assume that you weren't trying to be philosophical.

[dustin_archibald]

Originally Posted by harmonygirl

Yes at any one time, but when describing existence as a whole, shouldn't we take into account all of the probabilities? (without the time polaroid?) Wouldn't an accurate description of reality include simultaneous existence and non-existence, depending on whatever probability is appropriate at the time?

Are you suggesting that reality includes the possibility that something can simultaneously exist and not exist? I guess we can't rule it out since we don't know everything about everything. As well, perspective still plays an important part as I suggested before.