Existence and Nonexistence

What is the difference in their effect?

On what?

On whatever matters. - You?

Oh. There is no effect.

‘Existence’ is not a predicate.

The dog is black. The dog is white. The dog has four legs. The dog has three legs.

All of these are predicates of the subject ‘the dog’ because they change your concept of the dog. If one says ‘the dog exists’, nothing about your concept of the dog changes. The subject remains the same. To say something ‘exists’ is merely to say that you observe it in the world.

I presume you mean that with non-existence there “is no effect”.

So, that being the case, what must be the essence of existence?

No I meant both. Why on earth would you presume that?

It likely also involves some delusional imputations though. When we say something “exists” we tend to make too much of its independence from its context. Sometimes we go so far as to assert that it exists metaphysically - i.e. that it is permanent, truly independent, etc. So some people talk about “nonexistence” in order to refute these ideas. And some people feel that, experientially, there is a dreamlike quality to existence. So that may have something to do with the use of the word “nonexistence”.

The non-existence of $400,000 in my pocket makes me very sad, whereas its existence would make me very happy.

Well nonexistence can’t affect because it doesn’t exist. But what if you took to situations where everything was the same in both but one thing was missing in one. The end result would be different. So do you say its missingness/non-existnce had an effect “with” the other existing things or is it simply that, that “combination” of things leads to “that result”. The thing missing had nothing to do with it. We only assume it did because we compare situations and because by eliminating certain factors we can effect the end result.
But the non-exiting missing thing had nothing to do with the end result. It did not “cause” it. It’s rather that the “sum total”(combination) of factors was different in each case and thus lead to different results. If you assume the missing thing was part of the cause then you’d have to assume a whole lot of other missing things were part of the cause as it had that affect rather then a hundred other ones. You assume. There isn’t’ it caused that situation “rather” then another. That would be assuming that other situation somehow exists for it to be part of the whole result. To say the missing factor “could” rather cause that situation rather then the other. And also what about all the nonsensical factors that don’t ever exist. Do they somehow cause “less” then the missing factors simply because they “never” exist. But the point is not that the missing factors never exist (in any situation) when speaking in relation to the effect but that they don’t exist in “that” situation thus they had no relevance to that effect. Did not cause it as they were not in that situation.

There would definitely be a dreamlike aspect to the existence of $400,000 in my pocket!

That might just depend on the individual.
For some who exist, there is not much evolution or movement.

The difference between existence and non-existence is within movement.
Existence gives rise to consciousness flow.
Non-existence remains in stagnation at a standstill.

My guess: disbursement widens the range of the effect as it vanishes or as it is reprocessed as part of some other existence.

Is non-existence actually the case or is it more like pre-existence before the recycle? When energy congregates and an event of movement causes manifestation of a form or pattern…scratch that…is everything or anything possible? I’m confusing myself it seems. :-k

Yes, I’m really confused for all of the sudden I don’t believe in non-existence.

There is no such thing as nonexistence.

Newton noted that if there is no influence affecting an object in motion, the object remains in motion. That “Law of Motion” was actually an ontological declaration, as were many “laws” of physics. We decide to think in terms of what has affect. And if there is no affecting going on, we declare that “no-thing” is there. It is an issue of epistemology in forming a rational ontology (a rational way to think of reality).

The most fundamental truth is that the total sum influence/affect that a thing has is what a thing is. You and every “thing” is merely a bundle of influence. Parts of “you” influence other parts of you and thus are established as “parts”. The total of you influences whatever is surrounding you. Without any influence occurring, there is no you. You would not exist.

It is a breach in ontology to suggest that the lack of a thing caused an effect. The lack of a thing, by definition is the lack of its affect or influence. It can be said that because there was not a particular thing present to have affect, the other things maintained their affect without interference. When there is no influence affecting an object in motion, the object remains in motion.

If that rubs you wrong … argue it with Newton. :sunglasses:

What could ever stop energy from being in motion?

Our perceptions of what constitutes energy and its movements are not necessarily accurate or whole, so how is there a no thing if everything in existence is energy moving? To us, there may seem to be no affect.

[In the mood to ramble: I should include the past, present, and future all at once occurs elsewhere (I mean time seems to stop here in the Earth realm) for there is no change elsewhere other than in one’s very conscious memories being replayed, the memories housed in your soul, your seat of consciousness. One’s memories are the currency of time in other dimensions, but there is nothing to measure thoughts against so far as I can tell there, one only knows that through thoughts time passed in the having of them, but to what degree/amount/length(not sure which word qualifies as precise)…who knows.]

Influence changes forms but when one form of influence seems to vanish, you do not vanish. Non-existence is a fantasy. No one and no thing ceases to exist so why the question?

Why our memories are erased may be a godsend to keep us as sane as possible throughout infinity.

Backup a little. Energy is not a “thing”, despite modern implications. Energy is an ability, like a skill or intelligence are abilities. Energy can change and on infinitesimal levels always does. The potential or ability gets changed as actual minuscule things change position. An apple on a lower branch of a tree has a different energy potential than the exact same mass of apple on a higher branch of the same tree. As the tree grows or sways, their energy changes. Energy is a matter of situation, where things are relative to each other. And if things do not move from where they are and do not change what they are, the energy involved would not change either. But then on a ultra minuscule scale literally all things are always changing and moving position.

By definition, neither past nor future exists. Only the consequences of the past and thoughts of the future exist. The past leaves consequences in the physical called “state of motion” and in the mind called “memories”. The future is but a concept, with no physical reality at all.

Space movement, planetary orbits, Earth’s rotation is considered ultra minuscule?

Why is energy not a thing in density/concentration, power/force, longevity, constant speed? The combination of yet unidentified types of energy do not make up matter?

If no future, then how have I dreamed of the future? Did I manifest it’s eventuality with my will? I willed you, matter, and tomorrow’s events. Your will aided me, but I did the lion’s share of making energy potent enough to create patterns/forms.

I’m going to call my ability…dimensional reflections. I have officially become the Big Sky Mama. Yes, I must razz you, JSS. :evilfun: :laughing:

…sigh … The presence of one (microscopic) does not negate the presence of the other (macroscopic).

Energy is a state, specifically of potential (“to do work”). The energy within a mass particle is not doing work, but capable of being freed to do work. The substance of the universe, Affectance, is the ultra-minuscule changing of that potential, even within the particle. All physicality is formed of Affectance. Energy is the consequential state (aka “PtA”, Potential-to-Affect).

They are not “unidentified”. They are ultra minuscule EMR pulses and waves, “Affectance”. The EMR is released when diverted from its natural aggregation (subatomic annihilation).

A prediction of what the present will someday become, is not in itself, the “future”. The future is the present that has not yet formed.

It is your ability to “predict” or “sense” the present that has not yet come to exist.

That not “unidentified” is bologna and you are only considering what is so far recognized in this dimension which isn’t what’s important. If you can identify the location of your soul in your human anatomy and identify what that body consists of, I’ll print off my words and eat them. My printer is on. :evilfun: