Existence and 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:

James

Let me see if I have this right - because this would appear to be an important piece of missing information to me.

Consequential indicates following as a result or effect. So you are therefore saying that the PtA has to be built up first before it can affect.

Well that makes sense to me.

With GOD being the cause then it becomes a domino effect of sorts.

Simply existing, it has built up PtA…God power.

WendyDarling

Hmm . . . I guess that is one way of putting it.

I think this is bound to:

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = “The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is”.

Here is my drastically simplified example just to get things rolling:

We have two variables: A & B

B is the initial state of PtA and is Zero

A contains, well, lets say two - it whacks B with two.

B now contains a PtA of two as a consequence of being whacked by A

This example is a domino effect - an illusion - because - “The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is”. B would have to whack A back.

RM:AO accounts for the illusion I have created here - B goes on to affect C because it has PtA that was given to it from A as a consequence of being whacked.

If you combined what I mentioned as PtA existence, then added the PtA domino effect, wouldn’t that be a double layered eventuality accounting for unforeseen affects, what some call random or chaotic results?

Are you trying to break my brain?

:laughing:

Seriously though . . . I am currently working on a logic example:

The double layer in my example is in metaspace - so it is not a part of our space. There is only one active layer in our space. Random ? . . Wendy, I am still thinking about how to answer a question you once asked me about that . . . I don’t like the idea of random - let us just say that.

My brain hurts . . .

:smiley:

I also kind of messed my example up to begin with, I am working on it.

:smiley:

We have two variables: A & B

B is in the initial state of PtA = Zero

A contains, well, lets say two - it whacks B with two.

B is now in a state of PtA = two, as a consequence of being whacked by A

B goes on to affect C and C goes on to affect D et cetera - it is all linear at this point. However we are talking about a 3D space so to provide an example for that is a little bit more time consuming.

I only said random due to our predicted outcomes being off for no explainable reason (Think of Star Trek’s Spock giving the odds in percentages of something going as expected or not as expected, outcome probabilities). Random may be merely a poor or small perspective.

Random is useful in talking about things - especially when we have to begin an example. Predicted outcomes would be off through lack of precision I imagine. Probabilities are also useful but only to make good guesses. Does GOD really throw dice?