[dustin_archibald]

I don't know if this post belongs here or not but I hope the moderators will move it if it's in the wrong place.

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
OR
b) something affects it

I pondered the Theory of Non-Existence first which is why it is listed first.
The Theory of Existence is still a work in progress. The only way I've found to disprove it relies on it being true, so it ends up being a weird paradox.

[dleviwing]

Dustin;
We normally call these axiomatic statements.
Welcome to TOEquest.
Best regards;
dleviwing (Dave)

[dustin_archibald]

Dave,
Thanks for the welcome. Can you tell me why they would be axiomatic? I know the term so I'd just like a little discussion.

BTW if you anyone knows of someone who's already come up with these please let me know. I don't want to be ripping anybody off.

[dleviwing]

Dustin;
Axiomatic being a self evident statement like the "shortest distance between two points is a straight line"(relativity excluded).
Do you have a hypotheses you wish to discuss?
Create a thread under one of the forums and it will be open for all to discuss with you.
Best regards;
Dave

[Guille]

Originally Posted by dustin_archibald 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 OR b) something affects it

I don't know if it's in purpose, but you use different words for each theory.

don't you think that something that exists, affects and is affected (AND). not or.

how can nothing affect something? or do you mean that it isn't affected? (these are common problems that arise when dealing with languages and the word "nothing").

[dustin_archibald]

Originally Posted by <<>> don't you think that something that exists, affects and is affected (AND). not or.

I don't think so. It is possible there is something out there that is never affected yet still affects other things or vice versa.

Originally Posted by <<>> how can nothing affect something? or do you mean that it isn't affected? (these are common problems that arise when dealing with languages and the word "nothing").

What about:

Something is said to not exist if:
a) it has no effect on anything
AND
b) it is not affected by anything

[Guille]

Originally Posted by dustin_archibald I don't think so. It is possible there is something out there that is never affected yet still affects other things or vice versa.

I will explain what I mean: We understand the universe as a cause-effect continued sequence. Then, let's say A is something that can affect but isn't affected and B something that doesn't affect but is affected. These are, indeed, the correct definitions, whiles we have our direction of forward time. But, what happends if we look at time backwards, or ebtter defined, in the opposite direction? then, B is something that affects but isn't affected and A something that doesn't affect but is affected. Then, both can be said to affect and be affected.

Originally Posted by dustin_archibald What about: Something is said to not exist if: a) it has no effect on anything AND b) it is not affected by anything

This makes it more clear, thanks.

I like the way you defend your propositions and the logic you use by fighting problems in the easiest way. I hope you triunf in this site.

[dustin_archibald]

Here is a problem I found with the Theory of Existence:

Theory of Existence
Something is said to exist if:
1) it affects something
OR
2) something affects it

According to this theory I can think of something and it will exist because a) it affects me (I perceive it) and b) something affects it (I affect it by creating it).

Here's the bad part:
What happens if I conceive of the concept "There is a disproof for the Theory of Non-Existence"? It is vague and I don't know where to find it but there now exists a disproof for the theory.

There's the paradox. The disproof doesn't exist unless the theory is correct. If the theory is incorrect the disproof doen't exist therefore making it possible for the theory to be correct.

I think it's interesting that something which is axiomatic or inherently true can be so fatally flawed.

[dustin_archibald]

Originally Posted by <<>> I will explain what I mean: We understand the universe as a cause-effect continued sequence. Then, let's say A is something that can affect but isn't affected and B something that doesn't affect but is affected. These are, indeed, the correct definitions, whiles we have our direction of forward time. But, what happends if we look at time backwards, or ebtter defined, in the opposite direction? then, B is something that affects but isn't affected and A something that doesn't affect but is affected. Then, both can be said to affect and be affected.

If we looked at time in the opposite direction then wouldn't we understand the universe in an effect-cause continued sequence? In any case I believe there is something that does not change no matter what occurs (Universal Whip). As well, there is something out there where it's nature is to be continually affected but never effect anything (Universal Whipping Boy).

Originally Posted by <<>> I like the way you defend your propositions and the logic you use by fighting problems in the easiest way. I hope you triunf in this site.

Thanks for the compliment.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by dustin_archibald If we looked at time in the opposite direction then wouldn't we understand the universe in an effect-cause continued sequence?

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).

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".