The Paradox of Existence

[Keep Relentless]

Existence is a paradox.

The universe may not be of a limited age, as always there has been the potential for existence, and always, then, a former existent to determine a latter one. "Existence began from nothing" is as much a paradox as "God created existence".

The universe may not be of an infinite age as the concept of infinity is physically impossible, being undefinable and indivisible. Everything in totality would then be causeless.

The universe may not be of a limited size, as the concept of physical non-existence is, indeed, non-existent. Existence is physically everything, including nothing (despite the literal inaccuracy). If nothing may be physically defined, it is an existent.

The universe may not be of infinite size as it may not be of infinite age: infinity is indefinable and indivisible in the physical plane of existence, and rationally impossible.

The universe may not have a base unit, as such a unit by its nature is indivisible, and being so comprises no parts, and therefore comprises no rational existence.

The universe may not be infinitely divisible as, due to the impossibility of an infinite physically, it would have a composition of, ultimately, nothing that is definable. This would also contradict what we know physically: The size of a given body is limited and may be compared and contrasted with another.

It appears that the universe does not exist, and it appears undeniably that it does. I wish for merciless attacks upon these given ideas. Clarification on request, there is much more to give, this text is designed to be direct, brief and easily comprehensible. This text is directly independent of all public scientific knowledge, partly due to my own ignorance in such matters. I am Australian and 15.

[Graybeard]

Your premiss is incorrect. ergo: the paradox.

I don't see a paradox at all.

cool bananas ... greg

[Keep Relentless]

Existence is impossible.
Existence is possible.

Without a notion overthrowing what is given, the determination of space, time and matter is not rationally possible. The awareness that we may not deny is, however, there. If rationality can explain existence, enlighten me, the purpose of the post...

[Graybeard]

Existence is a paradox.

Obviously incorrect as paradoxes don't exist ... and we do.

The universe may not be of a limited age, as always there has been the potential for existence, and always, then, a former existent to determine a latter one. "Existence began from nothing" is as much a paradox as "God created existence".

You state that, 'as always there has been the potential for existence'
and 'and always, then, a former existent to determine a latter one.'

You provide no evidence ... you just state it. Your 'nothing' also comes as your own definition ... there is no such entity as nothing.

The universe may not be of an infinite age as the concept of infinity is physically impossible, being undefinable and indivisible. Everything in totality would then be causeless.

correct on both counts.

The universe may not be of a limited size, as the concept of physical non-existence is, indeed, non-existent. Existence is physically everything, including nothing (despite the literal inaccuracy). If nothing may be physically defined, it is an existent.

Incorrect .... Existence is everything ... does not include nothing ...

The universe may not be of infinite size as it may not be of infinite age: infinity is indefinable and indivisible in the physical plane of existence, and rationally impossible.

Correct

The universe may not have a base unit, as such a unit by its nature is indivisible, and being so comprises no parts, and therefore comprises no rational existence.

Bullshit. You are applying the same attributes to the base unit as you apply to the universe around you.

The universe may not be infinitely divisible as, due to the impossibility of an infinite physically, it would have a composition of, ultimately, nothing that is definable. This would also contradict what we know physically: The size of a given body is limited and may be compared and contrasted with another.

If something such as the base unit is undefinable in our perceptual reality ... then wouldn't it contradict what we know 'physically' ?

It appears that the universe does not exist, and it appears undeniably that it does. I wish for merciless attacks upon these given ideas. Clarification on request, there is much more to give, this text is designed to be direct, brief and easily comprehensible. This text is directly independent of all public scientific knowledge, partly due to my own ignorance in such matters. I am Australian and 15.

You need a major rethink ..... cool bananas ... greg

[Keep Relentless]

Thank you... I appreciate it immensely.
I am always rethinking ;D
Paradoxes, yes, are a product of logical thought, and cannot physically exist... Existence simply is, there seems no possible ultimate explanation. In the same vein as other physical paradoxes such as Zeno's... of course the solution is there, but it cannot rationally be justified.

In saying existence, I count everything with any kind of physical property, and so by virtue of existence existing, existence must have always existed in some form, as I state, because there must always be a former existent to determine a latter one. This does not require evidence, but is rather a deduction from the concept of existence. Nothing AT ALL cannot do, including be, and so cannot begin something. The universe is often defined as independent of energy, allowing it to have begun and allowing the conception of God, uncaused, in the form of energy.

You agree that a physical infinity is impossible... so then we find that the age of existence is infinite, but seemingly cannot be. Then we have our problem, how are we here?

And you agree that the size of the universe, and existence itself, cannot be any more infinite than its age. So then it must be limited, and outside of its confines, there is the presence of nothing, which in turn is a lack of presence. Nothing is simply the lack of all else, that is the problem. This means it must be independent of existence, if it can then be deemed non-existent, that is ok... (:

Let's assume that the base unit is the string in string theory, or else an object at the planck length. What happens when you break such an object in half? You cannot, because such a thing cannot be halved by definition, which would seem to imply that it has no half. Of course it does, for it to exist, and that is my problem. Rationally everything, even a base unit, requires parts to form its own make-up, but by definition a base unit cannot. ?

Yes, whether there is a base unit or not, it seems we cannot rationally justify it in terms of what we have before our eyes. It is possible of course, all we see is, and if a base unit exists it may not physically be broken, but the concept of dividing it is still there, and the concept of dividing it infinitely is as ridiculous as any infinite... BUT this infinite is no longer physical and may exist.

Yes I do, and I post for this reason, and I thank you for your time, and take nothing from the notification of your skepticism, but analyse what you say as best I can, and we have some progress but not to your standard I believe...

[austintorn@aol.com]

A string unit would seem to be unbreakable and thus unmakeable, but we don't know for sure if there are strings or that physical units are the base. Perhaps some kind of information could be the base.

Also, since any physical base unit would have a certain definition, and not any other, then it seems that it then would have to have been created, else why its particular properties versus any other.

[austintorn@aol.com]

It could be that 'nothing' cannot be since such a state of the lack of anything at all is perfectly unstable.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Graybeard lives on a mountain top somewhat outside of Brisbane. You could make a pilgrimage to see him there. I live on a mountain top half the year in Oahu and the other half on a mountain top in New York state. Feel free to drop by either one.

[austintorn@aol.com]

The prime paradox seems to be that there is nothing to make anything of, yet there is something. Having something being around forever doesn't really help this dilemna.

[Keep Relentless]

We, and many others, Aristotle for one, find that the concept of infinite is not a physical one, cannot be, and it has been agreed since ancient times that there is a base unit, etymology of the atom. No, having produced no object smaller than the Planck length, we cannot know what this base unit is exactly, but we can be quite sure it must exist. It must be unbreakable by definition, which does seem to set it apart from other "forms" of matter, but all matter is essentially this base unit, and so it does not have any unique properties at all among matter. When you "break" an object, you are simply separating the summation of base units, and so matter is unbreakable essentially.

If the universe had a beginning, that beginning must have been determined by energy, and so it would seem possible that matter may be created by some form of energy, whether this energy is God, living or not.

Thank you for posting!