Greylorn

Greg, Since the OP concluded with, "Can anyone put into words or... concepts that humans can understand and grasp, what it means to "exist"?" the general subject of existence, however broad it may be, seems to be fair game. I mostly agree with your thoughts on this, except for one that you expressed thusly, "Without space-time, math has no reason for being." As you may know, both dark energy and human consciousness are currently vying for position as the greatest mystery of the 21st century. You surely also know that many people claim that there is evidence for the existence of conscious intelligence independently of the human brain-body system, citing evidence of near-death and out-of-body experiences, plus the occasional transfer of veridical information from hard-dead individuals. (This is all empirical information that does not fit into conventional science-based guesses about consciousness for lack of a physical paradigm. One such paradigm does exist, in obscurity.) In this context, and the context of your statement, consider the hypothetical notion that some primitive form of conscious intelligence, supported by entirely physical mechanisms that we understand about as well as we understand the precursor to the Big Bang, developed consciousness from raw potential. For even more speculative amusement, knowing that human consciousness develops in the company of other conscious humans, suppose that several potentially conscious entities were involved in the initial development of consciousness. What language could they have used that would also give them something to discuss, if not mathematics? Every "consensus" that had been devised to explain the universe that existed at the moment of my birth has been proven to be nonsense, including, regrettably, the belief that the universe was created by an omnipotent God. In the course of my studies and a career in science that began in 1959, the "scientific consensus" about the beginnings of things has changed at least six clearly discernible times. Therefore IMO "consensus" is a term that describes the latest bag of bunk, handed down from a gang of intellectuals who confer "degrees" and awards upon those who agree with them and can mimic their style. The bunk they generate is passed down, like offal, to the rubes, the science-camp followers who pay their salaries in lieu of thinking for themselves. Do not mistake me for a non-scientist or anti-science nit. I love science. But the bobble-headed fruitcakes speculating about multi-verses and branes on documentary TV channels are there to sell deodorants, pills, and cars-- not honest science. Their opinions are products, like the crap sold during commercials. Products change frequently. These people are snake-oil salesman, selling whatever they can convince a weakly-educated person to believe in, but mainly, selling them the pretense of advanced knowledge. One of their tricks is to hand down arcane jargon, words that can substitute for knowledge-- but only to those who do not know how to question the arcane terminology. What exactly is this PV-PT hypercube of which you write? Looks like nonsense to me, and it is not on my list of arcane concepts to study. Google was non-specific. Where might I find a description of this concept? Finally, a cube must, by definition, be described by at least three dimensions. A geometrical "point" has no dimensions. How then can a hypercube be also a point? I'd like to clear up these questions before attempting to deal with other components of your post, to prevent this thread-section from degenerating into complete confusion. Thank you for your assistance in this.

Cosmologists claim the Big Bang created space-time, which seems to say neither space nor time existed prior to it. If space-time did not exist before the BB, it seems no dimensions exist, which implies that numbers cannot exist because numbers are a line of one dimension. Moreover, numbers are information, which cannot exist without space-time and mass-energy. On the other hand, it seems inevitable that the same numbers exist in all universes as well as the same mathematics. Moreover, the language of science is mathematics, which means the universe is mathematical regardless of whether an intelligent species understands mathematics. The existence of anything without space-time seems paradoxical, even something as abstract as mathematics. A paradox may mean our assumptions or thoughts are erroneous. I once read about time existing before the BB (IDK where), which results in one dimension and numbers existing before the BB. Ed, I especially like the parts of this post where you do your own thinking. Having entered the field of astronomy in 1965, when Gamow and Hoyle were arguing the Big Bang origin vs. a Steady-State universe and no one mentioned LeMaitre's theory, I can safely bet you that Big Bang theory will be a piece of astronomical history before 20 years are out. Not all cosmologists believe in it. The Big Bang required a precursor, and it has been impossible to get a theoretical handle on what that might be, leading to the current absurd notion that the precursor was a physical singularity, something that cannot exist and which cannot be mathematically defined. There are other reasons to doubt the Big Bang's legitimacy but they would take this thread off-topic. In the meantime, ask yourself, in the context of the cosmological claim that space and time were created in the Bang, in what space did its precursor exist? Re: your comments about the existence of numbers-- I do not see numbers existing on a line of one dimension. What is the dimension? For the purpose of graphing things we often create arbitrary categories. A supermarket analyst might graph the number of eggs sold per customer, showing the result in Cartesian coordinates. Do eggs and customers suddenly become meaningful "dimensions" just because some nit with nothing better to do happens to display them on a graph? I don't think so. Then, what exactly is a number? You might mistake the symbols we use, 1, 2, 3, 948, etc. for numbers, but they are merely the representations of numbers which do not exist at all, except as concepts in the human mind. We use the convenient, symbolic Arabic number system without thinking much about what it represents. But consider that Euclid's mathematics was developed without such a number system. You might also consider the relationship of numbers to energy, in the context of existence. Energy is required to display a number on a screen or write it on paper, but does the number three (for example) require energy to simply exist? Then, while theorists posit that the Big Bang created matter, space, and time, what aspect of the Bang might have created numbers? All things considered, it is beginning to look as though the word "exist" is an excellent entryway into core beliefs of philosophy and physics. "Existence" seems to be one of those English language words like "love," with seventeen different meanings.

Your question is divergent and therefore interesting. However, the best way to request correct grammar and diction from responders is to provide an exemplary example. Existence is well defined in the context of basic physics. Anything that can interact with something that is physical, that is, which is known to be a part of the physical universe, exists. This is a broad definition of existence that includes things which cannot be detected by our body's physical senses, such as neutrinos or radio waves. It includes extremely subtle forms of information exchange that can be detected by some individuals (and so far, no instruments) such as telepathy. This describes the notion of physical existence. It does not address things like ideas. For example, the idea that the energy contained in a quantity of matter is equal to the mass of the matter multiplied by the velocity of light, mathematically expressed as E=mc2. This idea states that a kilogram of radioactive plutonium can be converted to energy in a fission bomb. We'd all probably agree that this idea "exists," but not in the same way that the plutonium exists. Here's another idea. Any human souls that are vaporized in a nuclear explosion will contribute to the power of the explosion, and will be vaporized along with the human bodies that harbored them, never to be seen again in heaven or hell. Is that an idea that exists? It is now. Greg, Well informed post. And you know that Descartes' focus was on the more ethereal components of existence, such as soul and/or mind. So, suppose that we operate in the context of his ideas and extend the question from the OP. If you are a mind/soul connected to a body, whether via the pineal gland or the binding effects of glial cell radiation, and you determine that you exist, by the measures of Descartes' reasoning. Okay. Now, what about the pineal gland or glial cells? Do they necessarily also exist? Would you exist if those biological structures did not exist? Then, taking the argument down a tick, what about the molecules and atoms that comprise the pineal gland or glial cells? Does the reality of your existence mean that these atoms must also exist? And if those atoms/molecules exist, what about their precursors? What about their support system-- the entire physical universe? Would you (as a conscious mind) exist even if this magnificent support system did not? I think, yes-- but you would not have become aware of your existence. BTW Descartes is one of my philosophical heroes. Thank you for honoring his line of thought. Mathematics is separate from physical reality. The best way to explain the distinction is that the principles of mathematics represent the most absolute form of existence. They have always existed, and will continue to exist. Math cannot be changed. Not even the "omnipotent God" of Christianity can declare that 2+2=5. Math can be expressed in terms of physical reality (Two beans in one hand and three beans in the other equals five beans.) Yet the concept, 2+3=5 is true even if the universe and all the beans within it evaporate. Mathematics is independent of any known manifestation of reality. It existed before the universe came to be, and will continue to exist after the universe dissolves into the raw energy from which it was formed. The manifestation of our universe does not change mathematics in any way-- it simply allows for the expression of mathematical forms. Math can only be discovered. It cannot be invented. A valid mathematical theorem cannot be invalidated. Euler's identity was true before Euler was born, and 2+2=4 long before our ancestors were romping around in trees. Math exists at a higher level of existence than matter. Matter can be converted to energy, but a theorem lives forever. If all the conscious minds in the world who understand a particular theorem are eliminated, the theorem survives in an ineffable "mindspace," awaiting a rediscovery, but not caring abut being rediscovered, as it did not care about being discovered. If there is a God, math is more absolute. Huh? Is this a meaningful statement? Is is relevant to the OP? Is it relevant at all? If so, kindly elaborate. As stated, it makes no sense to me.

Then perhaps you've not done any research. Awareness is not conferred by the universe as if by magic. It comes from study, or experience. Much of what people mistake for "awareness" is merely the mental absorption of an agreement system invented by others. Do you believe in the existence of black holes? Do you believe in Darwinian evolution? Why? Because you've personally studied cosmology and evolutionary biology, or because you know that others who have done so have come to agree upon those beliefs?

Good question. There is an answer to it that has major implications for all religions, as for physics. This is detailed in my book, but here is an outline of the idea that might make sense to those who have kept up with pop-science concepts via magazines or documentary channels. For others, the darned book offers the requisite background. Hypothesis 1: The recently discovered substance known as "dark energy" originally existed in an unformed state, subject to the original three laws of thermodynamics, at a temperature of Absolute Zero, containing neither form nor structure. This makes dark-energy a simple substance which according to its internal laws; manifests (1) a constant, non-created state of being; (2) a single, simple force; and (3) a simple boundary condition. Hypothesis 2: There also existed, separately from dark energy, something tentatively named aeon, whose properties have never been investigated and thus are less well known than those of energy. One property it must have is the natural ability to act as a counterforce to dark energy. Hypothesis 3: These two different spaces, or perhaps fields, existed in a larger space within which they collided, causing disruptions to the state of each. Unstructured but non-homogeneous forms occurred within dark energy space, and differentiated lumps of potential consciousness (beons) precipitated from aeon space. Inevitable Conclusion 1: Some of these beons interacted with energy, and eventually with one another. A few used their ability to reverse the normal behavior of energy so as to create primitive information, and from this, became conscious. The first beons to develop conscious self-awareness formed a group which eventually chose to invite all similar entities into consciousness. This consortium is a fair approximation of what religionists worship as "God." Under this concept, "God," although neither almighty, omnipotent, nor singular, has a beginning, first in structure, subsequently in self-developed function. Such gods could also have ends, if they became sufficiently bored with existence. The Buddha's original concept of soul as an epiphenomenon describes how. Kindly note that this outline of concepts is not intended to be an explanation of those concepts, and that I will not offer detailed explanations on this forum, except to participants who have independently researched the ideas behind it. Of course the complete theory goes into greater depth. This post was intended only to show that there is an answer to the OP. It is a simple but non-trivial answer, accessible only to conscientious students, not the least bit accessible to those who are trying to figure things out in the context of any current belief system.

John, The distortions and confusions surrounding the currently popular God-concepts make discussing an alternative creator-concept in the depth that you request impossible on a blog. I've tried it before. New ideas get quickly smothered in hate and false assertions by individuals clinging to their trusted beliefs, atheists and religionists alike. However, I did write a 500 page book that deals with these ideas, Digital Universe -- Analog Soul that includes an exhaustive presentation of my ideas, and others. I'd be delighted to discuss them at length with anyone who has taken the trouble to study them. Should you be one of the few with the mind and curiosity needed to honestly evaluate ideas that differ from those you've chosen to believe (very, very difficult), please read the book no faster than one chapter at a time. Even better, reread the previous chapter before perusing the next. Those who do so invariably discover ideas they had missed on their first reading.

Sorry about not using your full handle. It evokes images of an old gentleman exposing his posterior to the full moon, then inviting someone to admire his moon-tan. I just cannot handle that. In no way would I have implied a reference to Mary Tyler Moore. She showed class, and a modicum of intelligence. I apologize if you were offended. You have no idea what my ideas are, yet feel qualified to dismiss them. Therefore I have zero respect for either your intelligence or personal integrity. Evidence will never change your "mind." Your brain's axons have been myelinated decades ago, and your brain is limited to defending the beliefs fixed therein.

As with any subject, research is the foundation of knowledge. If you were serious about acquiring knowledge you might begin with F.W.H.Myers' Human Personality and the Survival of Bodily Death and follow up with the "cross-correspondence" studies, highly credible information conveyed by Myers after his death. (I assume that "dead and buried" is enough to establish the premise that the brain is no longer functional.) http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/38492 This research will keep you busy for a few months. Enjoy! Serious psychic research is more interesting than you have imagined.

Your general point is worthwhile, but some of your premises are, IMO, incorrect. I've worn both hats, and programmers are not scientists. While both fields require the use of both inductive and deductive logic, so do banking and politics. Scientists seek to discover logical patterns within an objective reality which no humans participated in the construction of. Computer geeks work only with an arbitrary reality created by other humans. Entirely different. Science is full of dogma. Get onto the "Forbidden Knowledge" site and check out Rupert Sheldrake's illustrative and amusing videos. The difference between science dogma and religious dogma is that, with considerable struggle and pain, scientific dogma can be modified without getting the modifier burned at a stake or beheaded. Human nature is the same. We tend to hang onto our favorite beliefs, and when enough others agree with the same belief set, that set becomes dogma. The Darwinist explanation of biological evolution is a perfect example. The odds against the random assembly of a single, small human gene (900 base-pairs) is 1.4 x 10-542. For the rational mind, that number means "impossible," but not for Darwinists. The human brain seems to come with a built-in "Nonsense Bucket" that needs to be filled. It does not matter what it is filled with, or who does the filling, so long as there is an agreement base of individuals who believe the same nonsense. The bucket is treated as "full" when enough others agree with whatever it is full of. In this context beliefs such as, a) The universe was created by an almighty being, and b) The laws of the universe are the same everywhere in spacetime, are just beliefs. Neither can be proven. Likewise, the notions that biological life was a) Created by an unknowable God, or, b) Created by random chemical reactions within ordinary matter, without any intelligent engineering whatsoever, are also unprovable beliefs. In fact, there is more legitimate evidence against these beliefs than for them, especially in the area of biology. I believe that this is only because we cannot experiment upon deep space objects. Dogma will be with us for a long time, and there is one thing about dogma that is common to all who operate according to a dogma. It is the opinion, "MY BELIEFS ARE THE TRUTH, OPPOSING BELIEFS ARE DOGMA."

NJ, Presuming that you are talking about the traditional God of modern monotheism, MTM is correct. You've no idea how much it pains me to say that. I will need to grab a beer right after finishing this and hit myself over the head with the empty bottle. That God-concept is a theological invention that bears no logical relationship to reality. God is defined to be a "spirit," and as such is not observable by any instruments in the physical world. But if God really is separate from the physical universe, how did he manage to create it? One of these days I will initiate a thread designed to introduce a different God-concept, that of a creator who is limited by logic and the principles of physics. Neither you nor MTM will like it. But consider this before you pursue these subjects... What is the important core belief set to you? Would you accept the notion that the universe was created by a consortium of highly intelligent entities who were, and remain, an integral part of the universe? Or is it important that you accept the limited beliefs you were taught in childhood, before your mind was sufficiently developed to distinguish foolishness from logic? Can you accept the idea that the Creators of the Universe had an origin, and that they learned how to think and create on their own? Or must there be only a single omnipotent Creator, a being without beginning, who willed the universe into existence from knowledge that he had always possessed? Consider that either way you get to believe in a created universe. Is the exact nature of the Creator more important than the result?

Forget time. All philosophers seeking answers to the beginnings of things, which is what your "existence" query boils down to, are required to accept the existence of at least one "Absolute Miracle," one thing or event that cannot possibly be explained, not by all the philosophers in the universe, not even by any "God" whose very existence might be the Absolute Miracle. The only relevant question is, what might the Miracle or Miracles be? And, how do we verify those that might actually have been responsible for our universe? My personal preference is to throw out the currently accepted Miracles, the Big Bang and its precursor, and the Almighty God, as being too complex to have existed without cause. I prefer a simpler beginning-state that requires at least two, perhaps three Miracles that have the advantage of being as simple as possible, and for which there is excellent evidence. Now it is not likely that your question was addressed to "existence in general" such as the existence of a dark-energy precursor, etc. More likely you are concerned with the tertiary elements of existence that might affect your personal reality. With properly chosen initial Miracles, these things are easily explained. However, that does not make the explanation necessarily easy to understand. If you seek a succinct explanation that you will understand without doing a fair amount of study, get prepared to be frustrated. The answers you seek are out there, like elk in the woods during the few days of a hunting season. Sometimes the lucky bring some good meat home, but game more commonly falls to the well-prepared hunter.

Nothing "extraordinarily engineered" about this paradox, since I first came up with it in 4th grade Catholic religion class, greatly annoying the young priest teaching the class. Paradoxes tell us that our initial hypotheses are false. IOW an hypothesis that leads to a paradox is a falsified hypothesis. Centuries ago, Xeno's paradoxes demonstrated that motion is impossible. Last century we learned that he was right. At the atomic level, all energy transfers are quantized. This means that a tiny particle cannot move through space, but merely jumps from point A to point B. (A and B are very close together, separated by a small unit of distance known as the Planck length.) The rock paradox simply shows that God cannot be omnipotent.

There are a variety of metaphysical theories. This OP is meaningless unless it specifies the particular metaphysical theory its author dislikes. BTW, Darwinism has yet to predict the characteristics of the next new species, or where it will appear. Of course, no one has found a genuinely new species. There is not even a decent theory for abiogenesis, much less a prediction about it. Big Bang theory has predicted an invariant background radiation intensity, rather than the observed WMAP spotty pattern. It is easy to denigrate some undefined metaphysical theory, but whatever it is cannot be worse than our current beliefs about the beginnings.

You might want to read F.W.H. Myers' two-volume book, "Human Personality and the Survival of Bodily Death." You could also study the cross-correspondence seance data that Myers provided after his own death. However, you won't do that. Your final paragraph says that you will not be convinced of the survival of consciousness under any conceivable set of circumstances. Your brain has already made up your mind. The actual reason behind your position was pointed out by Kuhn in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." Data that contradict a currently accepted theory, no matter how bad the theory is, will not be accepted as valid data unless they fit into an alternative paradigm. The entire history of psi or paranormal research has been marked by a notable absence of any useful paradigm. The data would fit into most religious belief systems. However these are simply dogmas which are defined by specific beliefs, and are not functional paradigms. Because the scientist paradigm to which you ascribe does not allow for the possibility of an independent conscious entity to exist, for you (and others who adopt the same paradigm) to accept such a possibility would require that you discard your entire belief system. This requires considerable independence, and only 3% of a given population are capable of making up their own minds in the face of contrary agreement systems. Since you have already made it clear that you will not change your belief system, why am I wasting time discussing this? I mention this by way of grinding my own axe, a general purpose paradigm derived from physical data into which paranormal phenomena fit nicely and consciousness is explained in the context of "dark energy."

Given your preliminary assumptions which appear to be either atheistic or clsssical Buddhist, the answers to your questions should be apparent. 1.) It depends upon the particular human. Many of them address this question via suicide. Others make the best of their lives and enjoy every moment of their exisence, even appreciating the bad times. 2.) It makes no difference if we are extinct or not. "Better" than what? "Better" is a value judgment which, in the context of your comments is only relevant if a mind external to the system being evaluated exists to make comparisons. Therefore, I propose that we extend your argument to a created universe in which human beings and human minds are created. That changes the answer, at least for me. Were I to actually believe that a God created man, body and soul, I would self-terminate as an act of personal revolt against a creator who was either malicious or incompetent. However, there is a third alternative, that some entities actually did create the universe, including the critters on this planet and our biomechanical bodies, but did not create the conscious component of the human mind, a component primitively described by Rene Descartes to the best of his pre-physics understanding. Suppose that this is a reasonably correct assessment of creation. If so, you as a conscious mind were not created. More likely you have always existed as an entity with the potential for consciousness, but unable to realize that potential without assistance. The brain-body system provides that assistance. Under such hypothetical circumstances where your conscious mind might survive your body's demise, perhaps later entering other bodies to obtain a consciousness-boost, how would you answer your own question?