[dustin_archibald]

Originally Posted by subversion

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

Ah, yes.

I was trying to expand my perspective by looking at the issue from the other end. It's strange but the idea of existence not existing is harder to grasp than the idea of non-existence existing.

[harmonygirl]

I think that reality is predicated on simultaneous existence and non-existence. I don't know if I can explain myself without an example. The time stream that I think we're aware of is one of infinite (I know that's a loaded word, but I stick by my guns) numbers of possibilites. Your bacteria in the Red Sea example is one scenario. If you reduce a specific bacteria into a small enough piece, it will only probably exist (the same with the Red Sea, etc). The fact that we're on a time stream where it does exist, doesn't mean that there are not other time streams where it doesn't exist. I think that both are equally plausible. I don't know if the simultaneous realities actually occur or only occur as possibilities. Maybe to be equally valid, if one occurs, they all occur. Your example does, however, remind me of one of my pet theories: What if we (life on this planet) only exist to be host to bacteria?

[dustin_archibald]

Originally Posted by harmonygirl

I think that reality is predicated on simultaneous existence and non-existence. I don't know if I can explain myself without an example. The time stream that I think we're aware of is one of infinite (I know that's a loaded word, but I stick by my guns) numbers of possibilites. Your bacteria in the Red Sea example is one scenario. If you reduce a specific bacteria into a small enough piece, it will only probably exist (the same with the Red Sea, etc). The fact that we're on a time stream where it does exist, doesn't mean that there are not other time streams where it doesn't exist. I think that both are equally plausible. I don't know if the simultaneous realities actually occur or only occur as possibilities. Maybe to be equally valid, if one occurs, they all occur.

This reminds me of an idea Scott Adams wrote about in the Dilbert Pricinple (he didn't take credit for it). He postulated that there are an infinite number of possibilities and that our conciousness moves about these possibilites. He suggested visualizing it as a picture with an infinite number of squares; in each square is a possible "moment" or possible state of the universe. Our "soul" or whatever decides which square to jump to, thus becoming our reality. It's easier to jump to a contiguous square (ones that are touching) than to jump to non-contiguous squares but I can't remeber exactly why. Using the bacteria as an example there would be a square in that infinite picture where the bacteria exists. There would also be a square in that picture where everything is the exactly the same except the bacteria does not exist. There would also be a square where the bacteria exists and doesn't exist. Depending on where our conciousness jumped that bacteria would be in a different state.

Originally Posted by harmonygirl

Your example does, however, remind me of one of my pet theories: What if we (life on this planet) only exist to be host to bacteria?

It's nice to have a purpose in life.

[piemastercody]

how can we logically exist anyway?

to exist we would have to be in reality
which would use the abstract concept of human thought to make something comply with the definition of reality
which is that which is human thought or desire...
we can't exist

if we trace our beginnings back far enough further than any big bang or anything like that it is shown that we can not have even started anything even with a god to create it all
for a god would have had to be eternal which gives you the problem of a precise time and the fact that something eternal by nature also is an impossibility through an origin undefined
the only logical answer in the end of it all is that we infact don't exist and niether does the proof I am posting now...

[SSDS]

Hi All in this thread.

The problem of "existence/ non- existence" is cleared to some extent in
http://arXiv.org/abs/physics/0703043 , V5 (and may be the first couple of pages in V1).
If briefly - there doesn’t (and, it seems, - can not be) exist nothing else unique utmost infinite set "Information" – all what we call "Matter", "Consciousness", etc. – are some subsystems of the elements (subsets) in this Set and so all "are the words". At that an information in the Set can be in fixed (photo picture, an explosive in a box, etc.) and in dynamic (a process photographed, explosive after detonation) modes.
The Set Information has unique properties, including (relating to this thread) – every element of the Set contains all infinite number of others as "not-I" information; at that, e.g. – an element, even if it exists in a dynamic mode in "present state", "knows" it’s fate in past and future. As well as full information about any "existed" element (so the element itself) – was known (the element existed) always; e.g. the information about our Universe- including sapiens elements in this Universe- was known infintly far before it’s creation.
So in the set Information every element is connected to any other and undergoes to infinite interactions, but in some conditions there can be realized some "stable" subsets, e.g. – our Universe, when the interactions with main Set are reduced to QM scale; etc. – see the link...