Existence is...the Absolute Singularity.

[WendyDarling]

Existence is...the Absolute Singularity.

I plan on writing about my entire thought process to arrive at my assertion above.  What follows is the start of my journey.

This is the story of why I decided to examine the nature of reality and our human understanding of it. The world around me seems too chaotic and crazy right now, overwhelmed with fear and anger that exacerbates nihilism. Nihilism helps no one. So, due to not sleeping and having an abundance of mental energy, I began processing all the ins and outs, the quandaries, surrounding existence. These quandaries always end in a paradox, logical fallacies, or trippy infinite loops. I thought to myself, is understanding the immediate world around me and its order that messy?

No, I understand the order I find in my basic daily observations with most things being constant rather than inconsistent. With simple logic and reasoning, I can expect the sun to rise, a dog to bark, a chair to hold the seated, so where does understanding reality get so messy? Science. I despise reading and have never invested my understanding in the religion of science, so it was not a stumbling block for me to overcome the current beliefs it espouses.


Currently, I frequent two philosophy websites, commercial sites removed by moderator to expand my horizons regarding thought through the use of reasoning and the application of alternative perspectives.

The poster, Satyr, over at commercial site removed by moderator hammered home the need for me to use my basic observations of reality, the actual, before my head goes up in the clouds of purely abstract ideas that have no concrete foundation, no verifiability. So I did just that and formulated a new understanding of reality, existence.

But where's the foundation underneath my comprehension? From daily observations, I understand the simple consistency or constant that existence provides. I essentially know what to expect moment to moment by and large. I wondered could the simplicity of my expectations apply to the overarching umbrella that is known as existence?

Yes. It can.

Instead of spinning my wheels on paradoxes, logical fallacies, and the rest of the confusing nonsense, I decided to take a bold approach. Existence is...everything actual. No matter what galaxy or dimension or universe. No matter the form or size or shape of any actual thing, everything falls under the umbrella of existence as all that exists. That means there is only one, overarching existence.

Now I asked myself, I reasoned, if everything exists, how can anything not exist?

It can't. Non-existence denies the actual...existence. What?

Non-existence is purely an idea, a concept. But non-existence is understandable for we use it to describe death.

Many ideas and concepts are understandable, but that doesn't mean they make up actual existence in the traditionally understood way. Unicorns are understandable, but do not actually exist. Unicorns are another idea just as non-existence is an idea. There is no non-existence of a unicorn because there was never any existence of an actual unicorn. There are abstractions of unicorns, stuffies, cartoons representations, etc., but nothing actually living as the "animal" is understood.

But death is non-existence. What we are describing as death is change, not non-existence, not the becoming of nothing. I'll get into this more later.

Can something become nothing?

If something can become nothing, how would existence remain? It wouldn't, it'd disappear completely. So nothing and non-existence only exist as place holders in our daily lives but in the actuality of existence only occur as ideas in opposition to existence.

To Be Continued...

[studiot]

32 minutes ago, WendyDarling said:

Now I asked myself, I reasoned, if everything exists, how can anything not exist?

My great grandchildren are non existent.

?

[Phi for All]

40 minutes ago, WendyDarling said:

Existence is...the Absolute Singularity.

Since this is a science discussion forum, perhaps you could start by giving us your definitions of "Absolute" and "Singularity", so everyone is on the same page.

[WendyDarling]

Did I not place my thread in a philosophy section?   I'm new.  Uncertain about this user interface and all.

11 minutes ago, studiot said:

My great grandchildren are non existent.

?

They are an unsubstantiated idea, just as the concept of non-existence is an unsubstantiated idea.  If non-existence were realized, we wouldn't be having this exchange.

Quote

An absolute singularity is one of a kind and has no equal.  It is a unique phenomenon like no other...by Gordon Slack

That describes the umbrella known as existence perfectly.

 

So, a poster, such as I, cannot post references or links to other privately owned websites including all sources of available online media(YouTube, online news outlets, online book references, etc) any online references/sites?  I'm not trying to sell anything, only encourage discussion.  Parts of discussions happen in other places as well.

[studiot]

21 minutes ago, WendyDarling said:

They are an unsubstantiated idea, just as the concept of non-existence is an unsubstantiated idea.  If non-existence were realized, we wouldn't be having this exchange.

The language of this forum is English.

I learned recently in another thread here that negatives are treated differently by (some) other languages.

 

I have no idea what you mean by an unsubstantiated idea ?

English allows two sorts of nouns (and their 'existence')  -  concrete nouns and abstact nouns

Are you referring to something like this.

You do seem to have introduced new undefined terms, additional to those already introduced in your opening post (op).

32 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Since this is a science discussion forum, perhaps you could start by giving us your definitions of "Absolute" and "Singularity", so everyone is on the same page.

 

 

 

26 minutes ago, WendyDarling said:

So, a poster, such as I, cannot post references or links to other privately owned websites including all sources of available online media(YouTube, online news outlets, online book references, etc) any online references/sites?  I'm not trying to sell anything, only encourage discussion.  Parts of discussions happen in other places as well.

I will leave it to the kind moderator to explain what link you may or may not post.

Or you could just read the rules.

[Phi for All]

36 minutes ago, WendyDarling said:

Did I not place my thread in a philosophy section?   I'm new.  Uncertain about this user interface and all.

It's still a good idea to make sure we're all using the same definitions.

36 minutes ago, WendyDarling said:

That describes the umbrella known as existence perfectly.

It seems more like a non-description to me. A hand-waiving side-step that leaves me completely uninformed about it, other than it seems there's only one of them.

40 minutes ago, WendyDarling said:

So, a poster, such as I, cannot post references or links to other privately owned websites including all sources of available online media(YouTube, online news outlets, online book references, etc) any online references/sites?  I'm not trying to sell anything, only encourage discussion.  Parts of discussions happen in other places as well.

I hope you can appreciate what we have to go through wrt posters and advertising. You're free to use scientific references to support your assertions, even place links, but please don't quote other forums when citing evidence. Use more trusted sources that support mainstream science, not YouTube videos and opinion sites.

There's no need for us to read some other philosophy forum's posts when we have you here to discuss the topic with us. We want to hear your thoughts, as a member here.

 

 

Are you referring to a technological singularity, or a mathematical singularity, or just any one-off phenomena that seems unique? Why does it describe all of existence perfectly for you?

 

[WendyDarling]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

It's still a good idea to make sure we're all using the same definitions.

It seems more like a non-description to me. A hand-waiving side-step that leaves me completely uninformed about it, other than it seems there's only one of them.

I hope you can appreciate what we have to go through wrt posters and advertising. You're free to use scientific references to support your assertions, even place links, but please don't quote other forums when citing evidence. Use more trusted sources that support mainstream science, not YouTube videos and opinion sites.

There's no need for us to read some other philosophy forum's posts when we have you here to discuss the topic with us. We want to hear your thoughts, as a member here.

 

 

Are you referring to a technological singularity, or a mathematical singularity, or just any one-off phenomena that seems unique? Why does it describe all of existence perfectly for you?

 

Yes, there is only one existence and everything that is actual exists as a part of existence. 

Non-existence, is only a concept and idea, which defies the actual...existence and the actual somethings(everything real/actual/observable) which are parts of existence. 

Non-existence means no existence basically.   

We mistakenly label unsubstantiated ideas as actual things that exist such as my non-existent twin, the non-existent Easter Bunny, the non-existent Tooth fairy, etc.  If something never existed, it is only an abstraction based on our ideas and will never become existent.  On the other hand, actual things, any type of existing something, will never become non-existent, instead it will simply change forms.

Is any of this making sense?

Quote

I have no idea what you mean by an unsubstantiated idea ?

No physical form.  No actuality.

[studiot]

1 hour ago, WendyDarling said:

Yes, there is only one existence and everything that is actual exists as a part of existence. 

Non-existence, is only a concept and idea, which defies the actual...existence and the actual somethings(everything real/actual/observable) which are parts of existence. 

Non-existence means no existence basically.   

We mistakenly label unsubstantiated ideas as actual things that exist such as my non-existent twin, the non-existent Easter Bunny, the non-existent Tooth fairy, etc.  If something never existed, it is only an abstraction based on our ideas and will never become existent.  On the other hand, actual things, any type of existing something, will never become non-existent, instead it will simply change forms.

Is any of this making sense?

No physical form.  No actuality.

 

1 hour ago, WendyDarling said:

Is any of this making sense?

Not really.

 

Firstly PHI asked you to define what you mean by 'absolute' and 'singularity'.

You have not done so.

 

Secondly I asked what you mean by unsubstantiated.

All you have done is repeat it.

And you made no reference to my comments about the use of language.

One's use of language and in particular the use of negatives is crucial to discussions such as these.

 

As a friendly note new members to this forum are limited to a total of five posts in their first 24 hours.
This is nothing personal it is a very effective anti spam measure.
You may have noticed some websites that do not do this are flooded with advertising and worse spam.
After 24 hours you can post all you want - but remember the mods like one topic per thread and a rule of themb is that you need to post sufficient material on the forum for those who cannot look elsewhere to participate.
If you make assertions you may post a link to a known authority (eg Stanford Encycloperia of Philosophy) to substantiate your assertion.

Note I have used the verb to substantiate. This is why I asked about your use of 'unsubstantiated'.

Do you mean asserted without support or do you mean non-corporeal or something else again ?

 

 

Edited August 23, 2021 by studiot

[WendyDarling]

I am totally confused by the layout of this place, the smooshing together replies, and where my responses end up in terns of where I was trying to direct them.  Plus with the five post limit, tomorrow's continuation.  Please don't let your frustration ruin this discussion.  Give me a chance to select the appropriate words for my meaning.  How do I even edit something here?  I've not seen an edit function. 

[iNow]

Ability to edit is removed within an hour of posting. When available, it’s found via the 3-dot drop down at the top right of the post. Your 5 posts per day restriction is an anti-spamming measure and will be gone within 24 hours. 

[WendyDarling]

Studiot,

My response to your question to define "unsustantiated idea" is above as...

"No physical form.  No actuality."

In other words, some ideas become perceivable phenomena.  The ideas that do not become actual, observable, are unsubstantiated ideas which remain imaginings.

Phi For All,

My definition of an absolute singularity was stated above..."An absolute singularity is one of a kind and has no equal.  It is a unique phenomenon like no other.

Yes, singularity refers to a single event.  In the case of the absolute, this single event called existence is eternal.  The only eternal event observable.

Why am I claiming eternal?

The concept of anything being created from the lack of anything makes no sense.  Hence, existence must have always been working creating as a constant.  A constant without a beginning or an end.  Existence just is...

And there aren't any other existences, that concept is an impossibility based on this one existence encompassing all.

Questions?  I'm still working on word precision.  My ideas about existence have only been rumbling around in my head for a little over a week.

 

 

[Phi for All]

27 minutes ago, WendyDarling said:

My definition of an absolute singularity was stated above..."An absolute singularity is one of a kind and has no equal.  It is a unique phenomenon like no other.

I'm not sure how that can qualify as informative, something a definition is required to do. Perhaps the problem lies with your definition of "equal". A snowflake is one of a kind, but are its fellows "equal" to it? Each snowflake is unique, but can you also say they are "like no other"?

35 minutes ago, WendyDarling said:

Yes, singularity refers to a single event.  In the case of the absolute, this single event called existence is eternal.  The only eternal event observable.

Why am I claiming eternal?

The concept of anything being created from the lack of anything makes no sense.  Hence, existence must have always been working creating as a constant.  A constant without a beginning or an end.  Existence just is...

This is an argument from incredulity. You simply can't believe, it makes no sense to you, therefore it isn't. We can't know if the universe is eternal, or infinite in size . It could be. Or it could be finite. 

It's also an assumption that matter was created from nothing, and one that has led you to these conclusions. 

[swansont]

On 8/23/2021 at 12:14 PM, WendyDarling said:

So, a poster, such as I, cannot post references or links to other privately owned websites including all sources of available online media(YouTube, online news outlets, online book references, etc) any online references/sites?  I'm not trying to sell anything, only encourage discussion.  Parts of discussions happen in other places as well.

!

Moderator Note

Not if they are part of your argument. Only as reference material, or to support the details of your claim. People shouldn’t have to click on a link to participate.

 

[studiot]

4 hours ago, WendyDarling said:

My definition of an absolute singularity was stated above..."An absolute singularity is one of a kind and has no equal.  It is a unique phenomenon like no other.

You were also asked for your definition of absolute.

This is so we can distinguish an 'absolute singularity' from any other sort of singularity.

Or are you just adding fancy but meaningless words for effect, rather like advertisers do ?

 

On 8/23/2021 at 5:02 PM, studiot said:

On 8/23/2021 at 4:29 PM, WendyDarling said:

Now I asked myself, I reasoned, if everything exists, how can anything not exist?

My great grandchildren are non existent.

I asked this because I was concerned that you had presented a circular argument or contradicted yourself.

I see you have not done this because as I understand your meaning of 'exist' it can only be applied to material objects.

However this argument is just as fallacious as I have already pointed out that the English language makes provision for material things as well as for immaterial things.

And your argument seems to rest on the premise that no immaterial thing exists.

So would you deny the existance of colour ?

Is a shadow a material or immaterial thing ?

[WendyDarling]

3 hours ago, studiot said:

You were also asked for your definition of absolute.

This is so we can distinguish an 'absolute singularity' from any other sort of singularity.

Or are you just adding fancy but meaningless words for effect, rather like advertisers do ?

 

I asked this because I was concerned that you had presented a circular argument or contradicted yourself.

I see you have not done this because as I understand your meaning of 'exist' it can only be applied to material objects.

However this argument is just as fallacious as I have already pointed out that the English language makes provision for material things as well as for immaterial things.

And your argument seems to rest on the premise that no immaterial thing exists.

So would you deny the existance of colour ?

Is a shadow a material or immaterial thing ?

If there is another perceivable singularity, point it out.

"And your argument seems to rest on the premise that no immaterial thing exists."

Didn't I specify things using the words "perceivable" and "observable?"

Is color perceivable?  Is a shadow observable?

My meaning of exist covers more than just what we observe or perceive in this 4 dimensional space.  It is everything that is not an idea or imagining.

[studiot]

2 minutes ago, WendyDarling said:

If there is another perceivable singularity, point it out.

If there is only one sort of singularity or even just one 'singularity' why does it need to be qualified by 'absolute' ?

 

2 minutes ago, WendyDarling said:

Didn't I specify things using the words "perceivable" and "observable?"

Is color perceivable?  Is a shadow observable?

My meaning of exist covers more than just what we observe or perceive in this 4 dimensional space.  It is everything that is not an idea or imagining.

So you are changing your definition ?

8 hours ago, WendyDarling said:

"No physical form.  No actuality."

 

Edited August 24, 2021 by studiot

[WendyDarling]

Studiot wrote "If there is only one sort of singularity or even just one 'singularity' why does it need to be qualified by 'absolute' ?"

The Absolute signals both eternal and immutable.

Quote

So you are changing your definition ?

Hmmm, physical was an oopsie.  Yes, simply perceivable and observable stuff(not signifying physical per se).  I am trying to define the difference between what is observed/perceived outside the mind from an idea/imagining solely existing in the mind. 

Better?

[WendyDarling]

Prima Facie- an Idea/s

All arose from an idea/s.

Idea/s=intelligence=intelligent Creation

Prove me wrong.

"Just because" won't cut it.

[MigL]

I'm not much of a Philosopher, but this is a Science Forum, and I do know some Quantum Mechanics ...

On 8/24/2021 at 8:48 AM, WendyDarling said:

In other words, some ideas become perceivable phenomena.  The ideas that do not become actual, observable, are unsubstantiated ideas which remain imaginings.

Quote

 

 

Quantum Mechanics, which does describe all of existence, says wave functions are 'unsubstantiated' and 'remain imaginings' until observations/interactions collapse the wave function to become 'actual' and 'observable'.

By your definition, that makes much of the universe unsubstantiated, and simply, imagined, yet it has an effect on us.
That seems very different to Studiot's unsustantiated, future grandkids, which have no effect on him till realized.
You may want to re-think your definitions.

Edited August 28, 2021 by MigL

[swansont]

1 hour ago, WendyDarling said:

Prima Facie- an Idea/s

All arose from an idea/s.

Idea/s=intelligence=intelligent Creation

Prove me wrong.

"Just because" won't cut it.

!

Moderator Note

“prove me wrong” doesn’t cut it.

The one making the claim owns the burden of proof

 

[zapatos]

On 8/23/2021 at 11:14 AM, WendyDarling said:

An absolute singularity is one of a kind and has no equal.  It is a unique phenomenon like no other...by Gordon Slack

Outstanding! Turns out that I am a singularity! 

[studiot]

47 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Outstanding! Turns out that I am a singularity! 

Remember 'no equal' also applies to the rabbit at the bottom of heap as well as the dog at the top.

[zapatos]

40 minutes ago, studiot said:

Remember 'no equal' also applies to the rabbit at the bottom of heap as well as the dog at the top.

As long as I'm unique. Just like everyone else... 😆

[TheVat]

7 hours ago, WendyDarling said:

 

Idea/s=intelligence=intelligent Creation

Prove me wrong.

 

Thomas Austin ordering 24 rabbits shipped to his home in Australia.   

[Phi for All]

On 8/28/2021 at 7:23 AM, WendyDarling said:

Prima Facie- an Idea/s

All arose from an idea/s.

Idea/s=intelligence=intelligent Creation

Prove me wrong.

I'm still waiting for answers about definitions for "equal" and "like no other". And shall I assume you agree with me about your fallacious reasoning and assumptions wrt your eternal singularity?