Existence

[Roberto]

Hi,

 

I'm new even though I've had this account for quite a while. Before I begin, I have to admit that I have high hopes of finding people here that are just as intrigued with many many things like my self. For that reason, I want to have fluent communication with anyone who wants to make an opinion so I'll politely ask that if you decide to write something, use proper grammar or at least, adequate diction, that way it's easy to read and easy to be conveyed by whatever point your trying to make and how you argue said point.

 

On that note, I'd like to begin with a difficult question that can be answer in so many ways, I truly doubt any of us might reach a definitive conclusion (at least, one we all perceive to be conclusive) any time soon: Can anyone put into words or at most, concepts that humans can understand and grasp, what it means to "exist"?

[EdEarl]

Welcome to SFN.

 

I'm new even though I've had this account for quite a while. Before I begin, I have to admit that I have high hopes of finding people here that are just as intrigued with many many things like my self. For that reason, I want to have fluent communication with anyone who wants to make an opinion so I'll politely ask that if you decide to write something, use proper grammar or at least, adequate diction, that way it's easy to read and easy to be conveyed by whatever point your trying to make and how you argue said point.

See: Science Forums Etiquette Post #1

 

Since you consider correct language important, I've made a couple of corrections..

 

On that note, I'd like to begin with a difficult question that can be answered in so many ways, I truly doubt any of us might reach a definitive conclusion (at least, one we all perceive to be conclusive) any time soon: Can anyone put into words or at most concepts that humans can understand and grasp, what it means to "exist?"

I think your question is, "In simple words, what does it mean to exist?"

 

I believe we exist because of an accidental Big Bang, a Big Chill will be the end, and there is no global meaning of existence. Each of us endures and defines our own existence.

 

 

The happiness of the bee and the dolphin is to exist. For man it is to know that and to wonder at it. -- Jacques Yves Cousteau

 

 

For me life is continuously being hungry. The meaning of life is not simply to exist, to survive, but to move ahead, to go up, to achieve, to conquer. -- Arnold Schwarzenegger

 

 

My thought is me: that is why I cannot stop thinking. I exist because I think I cannot keep from thinking. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

Edited August 6, 2013 by EdEarl

[michel123456]

Hi,

 

I'm new even though I've had this account for quite a while. Before I begin, I have to admit that I have high hopes of finding people here that are just as intrigued with many many things like my self. For that reason, I want to have fluent communication with anyone who wants to make an opinion so I'll politely ask that if you decide to write something, use proper grammar or at least, adequate diction, that way it's easy to read and easy to be conveyed by whatever point your trying to make and how you argue said point.

 

On that note, I'd like to begin with a difficult question that can be answer in so many ways, I truly doubt any of us might reach a definitive conclusion (at least, one we all perceive to be conclusive) any time soon: Can anyone put into words or at most, concepts that humans can understand and grasp, what it means to "exist"?

What do you mean?

To exist as a human being, an animal, a plant?

Or to exist as the Universe, the stars & galaxies?

[Greg H.]

Rene Descartes spent a good deal of time ruminating on that very subject. In both Discourse on Method and Principles of First Philosophy, he arrives at the idea that if a something can doubt its own existence, then that something, of necessity, exists or else it could not doubt.

 

 

 

...ego cogito, ergo sum

And though Descartes wrote some 400 years ago, the question about what it means to exist is still with us. In fact, AJB put up a blog entry on the existence of mathematics, which asks the question does mathematics exist.

 

I mean certainly the concept of mathematics exists. We use it everyday, in a wide variety of ways. But is the existence of a concept enough to say that some "thing" exists which defines (or is defined by) that concept?

Edited August 6, 2013 by Greg H.

[PureGenius]

We exist to express the living consciousness within the universe a part of an infinite and creative process which will eventually lead to intergalactic travel and colonizing other worlds. We exist to be caretakers of the universe I think. To exist is to think I exist there is no need for further proof.

Edited August 6, 2013 by PureGenius

[Greylorn]

Hi,

 

I'm new even though I've had this account for quite a while. Before I begin, I have to admit that I have high hopes of finding people here that are just as intrigued with many many things like my self. For that reason, I want to have fluent communication with anyone who wants to make an opinion so I'll politely ask that if you decide to write something, use proper grammar or at least, adequate diction, that way it's easy to read and easy to be conveyed by whatever point your trying to make and how you argue said point.

 

On that note, I'd like to begin with a difficult question that can be answer in so many ways, I truly doubt any of us might reach a definitive conclusion (at least, one we all perceive to be conclusive) any time soon: Can anyone put into words or at most, concepts that humans can understand and grasp, what it means to "exist"?

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.

Rene Descartes spent a good deal of time ruminating on that very subject. In both Discourse on Method and Principles of First Philosophy, he arrives at the idea that if a something can doubt its own existence, then that something, of necessity, exists or else it could not doubt.

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.

 

 

And though Descartes wrote some 400 years ago, the question about what it means to exist is still with us. In fact, AJB put up a blog entry on the existence of mathematics, which asks the question does mathematics exist.

 

I mean certainly the concept of mathematics exists. We use it everyday, in a wide variety of ways. But is the existence of a concept enough to say that some "thing" exists which defines (or is defined by) that concept?

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.

We exist to express the living consciousness within the universe a part of an infinite and creative process which will eventually lead to intergalactic travel and colonizing other worlds. We exist to be caretakers of the universe I think. To exist is to think I exist there is no need for further proof.

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.

[EdEarl]

 

Greylorn: 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.

Whether mathematics existed before the Big Bang is a new idea for me, and leaves unanswered questions, which could not be resolved by my search in Wikipedia or by my google.

 

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.

 

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.

Edited August 7, 2013 by EdEarl

[Greg H.]

We may be straying from the OP a bit here, and if so hopefully the moderators will set up straight, but...

 

Mathematics, at least to me, seems to have a kind of meta-existence. It can be used to define things that exist (the universe for example), and it can be used to enumerate concepts that have no physical existence (someone please show me [math]i[/math] apples).

 

I think it's this existence outside of what we think of as physical existence that makes it so powerful. The concepts of mathematics would exist regardless of physical form (though we might not have any reason to do them without it), but they are inextricably tied to the physical because without a physical universe to describe, math has no reason to be used. It both defines, and is defined by, physical existence, even though it has none on its own.

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.

It's not that math doesn't exist without the big bang (at least to my mind), it's that is has no purpose - there's nothing for it to describe. It some respects, it may not exist separate from space-time simply because of this. Without space-time, math has no reason for being.

[EdEarl]

We can easily imagine things that do not exist in nature, for example faster than light speed. Similarly, mathematics can enumerate the impossible, for example a temperature below absolute zero. Thus, we cannot trust our imagination or mathematics to explain existence, we must augment imagination and mathematics with observation and testing, i.e., the scientific method, which cannot be done except within the confines of the Universe. Observation and testing are fallible, so we cannot know with certainty that anything exists. For example, we may be virtual beings in a game made by a godlike programmer.

 

We cannot know whether existence or essence is more fundamental. We are limited to "cogito ergo sum." We may believe mathematics exists beyond space-time, but we cannot know it.

[PureGenius]

Either everything exists or nothing exists as far as humans understanding absolutely anything, that's a question of confidence.

. Essence is existence the energy that animates us is the same energy that makes galaxy's spin it's a matter of perspective. We cannot say math doesn't exist before time or that it did but that the universe is mathematical in its overall structure is beyond argument. To define a moment is to spend a new moment remembering a past moment so one cannot define their particular existence unless they have transcended their own limited perception ie used their imagination to see outside of their perceptual limitations. Then that is an idea and cannot prove we exist.

[Greylorn]

Whether mathematics existed before the Big Bang is a new idea for me, and leaves unanswered questions, which could not be resolved by my search in Wikipedia or by my google.

 

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.

 

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.

[EdEarl]

 

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?

There is no consensus to answer this question. Perhaps in the first instant of time, the space--time was contained in a Planck-volume--Planck-time hypercube, which some believe cannot be further subdivided, and contained energy enough for the BB. That hypercube is AFAIK as close to a physical point with no dimensions. What existed before the BB is unknown.

 

Re: your comments about the existence of numbers-- I do not see numbers existing on a line of one dimension. What is the dimension?

The hypothesis of a multiverse may allow numbers and mathematics to exist for eternity. There is also M-theory which suggests branes existed before the Universe, but IDK how that would affect the possibility of mathematics existing. AFAIK current consensus is nothing existed before the BB.

 

A point has no dimension and nothing within a point. The set of integers can be represented as a function in which the domain and codomain are equal, and can be represented in a table (sequence) as opposed to a formula. To represent that sequence requires a vector, which is one dimensional. Numbers from plus to minus infinity are a sequence, and a sequence has one dimension; whereas, a point does not.

 

 

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?

There are numbers and numerals. Numbers are abstract and numerals are written symbols. Information technology deals with both numbers and numerals. Numbers in a computer are represented as switch states being either on or off (binary), which many people do not realize or understand, because they interact with computers via symbols on a display (numerals, alphabetic characters, and other symbols). Both switch state and symbol require energy to change the state, and may require energy to maintain the state. Moreover, there is information in every atom, quantum states of electrons and quarks. The Hawking Paradox was about conservation of information.

 

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.

 

Yes, exist seems to have many meanings. I can accept that mathematics as we know it is inevitable. However, if the prior to the BB there was nothing, then nothing means no numbers and no mathematics, which leads to the paradox of how can mathematics inevitably be the same in in any universe that exists if it does not always exist. Perhaps there is a multiverse to explain this dilemma. See video: How to Find a Multiverse.

[Greylorn]

We may be straying from the OP a bit here, and if so hopefully the moderators will set up straight, but...

 

Mathematics, at least to me, seems to have a kind of meta-existence. It can be used to define things that exist (the universe for example), and it can be used to enumerate concepts that have no physical existence (someone please show me [math]i[/math] apples).

 

I think it's this existence outside of what we think of as physical existence that makes it so powerful. The concepts of mathematics would exist regardless of physical form (though we might not have any reason to do them without it), but they are inextricably tied to the physical because without a physical universe to describe, math has no reason to be used. It both defines, and is defined by, physical existence, even though it has none on its own.

 

It's not that math doesn't exist without the big bang (at least to my mind), it's that is has no purpose - there's nothing for it to describe. It some respects, it may not exist separate from space-time simply because of this. Without space-time, math has no reason for being.

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?

There is no consensus to answer this question. Perhaps in the first instant of time, the space--time was contained in a Planck-volume--Planck-time hypercube, which some believe cannot be further subdivided, and contained energy enough for the BB. That hypercube is AFAIK as close to a physical point with no dimensions. What existed before the BB is unknown.

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.

[Science&Society]

The request in the OP is insufficiently clear, despite its attempt to speak plainly:

 

‘Can anyone put into words or at most, concepts that humans can understand and grasp, what it means to "exist".’

Firstly, "it” in the request needs to be clarified or at least explained. Currently, “it” is meaningless, or fails to signify what it refers too.

 

If the OP title "Existence" is taken as an indication, then perhaps the OP is asking for an answer to 'what [existence] means to "exist",' which is, secondly, a self-referential question, and perhaps is better formulated as the absurd question: "what does existence's existence mean?"

 

In addition, the OP has failed to live up to its own criteria ('to put into words, or at least concepts, that humans can understand and grasp') in proposing the request.

Or perhaps the OP is simply asking "What does existence mean?"

Edited August 9, 2013 by Science&Society

[Greg H.]

The request in the OP is insufficiently clear, despite its attempt to speak plainly:

 

‘Can anyone put into words or at most, concepts that humans can understand and grasp, what it means to "exist".’

Firstly, "it” in the request needs to be clarified or at least explained. Currently, “it” is meaningless, or fails to signify what it refers too.

 

If the OP title "Existence" is taken as an indication, then perhaps the OP is asking for an answer to 'what [existence] means to "exist",' which is, secondly, a self-referential question, and perhaps is better formulated as the absurd question: "what does existence's existence mean?"

 

In addition, the OP has failed to live up to its own criteria ('to put into words, or at least concepts, that humans can understand and grasp') in proposing the request.

Or perhaps the OP is simply asking "What does existence mean?"

Speaking from a philosophical standpoint, the question of the OP is probably best interpreted as "What does it mean to say something exists?" or "What is existence?".

 

 

 

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?

 

If such a non-physical consciousness existed outside of space-time, I'm not sure we could even properly define their existence, given our still limited understanding of anything outside the physical universe. If they existed within space time, they would not be at odds with my previous statement.

[PureGenius]

If something exists then the universe conserves it's energy so from a physics standpoint one has to ask were does consciousness go when something ceases to exist. I won't speculate on were I will just say energy conservation laws postulate the universe and individual systems will always conserve the maximum amount of energy possible. Also mathematics always always seems like a good communication device for extraterrestrials but I doubt the symbols would match and mathematicians on earth don't always agree on the best way to solve a problem. Simple explanations for existence life human behavior these are hard to find. I still think if a being is aware of the idea of existence that in itself is proof of existence .

[imatfaal]

If something exists then the universe conserves it's energy so from a physics standpoint one has to ask were does consciousness go when something ceases to exist. I won't speculate on were I will just say energy conservation laws postulate the universe and individual systems will always conserve the maximum amount of energy possible.

I think the only way you could think of consciousness like that is in terms of entropy - there is a little more energy bound up in the complex non random structure of the brain that there is in a simple chemical soup. But overall we have eaten enough food, to provide our bodies with more calories than needed, to mean that the energy balance is still correct and overall things are still tending towards random heat.

 

 

Also mathematics always always seems like a good communication device for extraterrestrials but I doubt the symbols would match and mathematicians on earth don't always agree on the best way to solve a problem. Simple explanations for existence life human behavior these are hard to find. I still think if a being is aware of the idea of existence that in itself is proof of existence .

a right triangle with glyphs on each edge and pythaogras, a circle with radius/circum and ratio inscribed and marked with another glyph, a parabolic curve with axes marked and equation and differentiation/slope shown. I reckon I could work out that in any language or form of presentation and from that have a good base to interpret more complicated stuff. I find it hard to believe in the existence of an intelligent spacefaring species who would not recognize pythagoras, pi, etc. and from there you can get equals sign, powers, and conventions.

[Greg H.]

a right triangle with glyphs on each edge and pythaogras, a circle with radius/circum and ratio inscribed and marked with another glyph, a parabolic curve with axes marked and equation and differentiation/slope shown. I reckon I could work out that in any language or form of presentation and from that have a good base to interpret more complicated stuff. I find it hard to believe in the existence of an intelligent spacefaring species who would not recognize pythagoras, pi, etc. and from there you can get equals sign, powers, and conventions.

 

Wasn't there a movie where the basis of communications started with a simple representation of the hydrogen atom and worked up from there?

[iNow]

Wasn't there a movie where the basis of communications started with a simple representation of the hydrogen atom and worked up from there?

Contact, based on a book with same name by Carl Sagan. Edited August 13, 2013 by iNow

[imatfaal]

 

Wasn't there a movie where the basis of communications started with a simple representation of the hydrogen atom and worked up from there?

 

 

Contact, based on a book with same name by Carl Sagan.

 

I was envisaging the Pioneer Plaque as I was writing my post - which IIRC was designed by Carl Sagan and Frank Drake amongst others.

[PureGenius]

Good movie and I still don't think the symbols would match but I do understand your point imasome of the mathematical structures would most likely be similar I'm just saying without a key we can't be sure information could be shared or not. Although it might be the most logical approach. I'm thinking some type of symbology like the plaque it's more likely to be understood in a context of other obvious symbols ie planets Sun's etc.

[iNow]

Oh, good call. I think that's a much better answer, and also came first.

[PureGenius]

Memories do eqaul a kind of measurement for existence how else would we even know time was passing or that we exist and also have in the past.