"this is food for thought, so grab a buffet plate" - digable planets
it's amazing how it happens: how just like "that!" time disappears. even time yet to come. the semester seemed to stretch on into the hazy future like a lazy dream - until the phone started to ring. and in the course of one calendar day, it appears that i no longer have an afternoon on any given weekday. though it may appear so to the untrained eye, i'm actually not complaining. honest. of course it would wonderful to abandon all responsibility and live whim to whim, but that's just not life for people who aren't paris hilton now, is it? no, i'm not complaining, just musing, yet again, on that thing we call time. and moreso on existence. which leads me to think of something that perhaps you, too, would like to think about.
what actually exists?
lets think about this. what actually concretely exists? do you and i exist, objectively? what are we, anyway?
the retort sounds loudly, "i'm me. are you blind?" i don't think i'm blind, but maybe i am thinking about things differently. it seems to me that it's possible that the 'you' you claim to be only exists in the mind's eye of the beholder. because in the strictly objective physical sense, you're nothing more than a collection of atoms, ions, and energy. in fact, at any given moment, the atoms that make up 'you' are being swapped for millions upon millions of other atoms in the space around and in you. the skin you wear today isn't the same skin as you wore yesterday, and there's about zero chance that it even contains an atom of the skin you were in when you were born. 'you' are being continuously built up and broken down, every second of every day of your life.
my point is this: virtually nothing in the universe remains static. everything is continually changing. atoms move, change form, combine, split, decay, are created from the vacuum. the 'you' that exists at this instant in time (if indeed you can actually pinpoint an instant in time), i can promise you, is not the exact same as the 'you' that exists at this instant in time.
nor at this instant.
and most certainly not at this one.
do you see what i mean? the whole, of course, is much greater than the sum of the parts. i am, after all, sitting here writing this for you to read, all the while very much conscious of 'myself'. but does the 'me' that exists in my mind actually exist in the objective physical universe? or is it just the universe that exists in the universe?
if there existed only two electrons in the universe (asid from the vacuum), i would argue that a 'pair' of electrons still wouldn't exist. "preposterous!" you scream. "you just said there are two electrons. that's a pair!" yes, yes i did say that there are two electrons. but i also said that those two electrons are all that exist. it seems to me that a 'pair' isn't a thing, but an idea representing the co-existence of two things (also potentially just concepts themselves). does a "pair" exist in this rather empty, two-electron universe? if your answer is yes, then my question is how? how does that thing exist as something other than an idea? it seems to me that a "pair" is just an idea. so how could it possibly exist without anyone there to think it? and for that matter, if you stubbornly insist that the pair does in deed exist in our made-up two-atom universe, then does that not mean that everything (and i mean e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g) else must also exist in this two-atom universe? it would have to. if a "pair" exists there, then the idea of a pair must exist. and vice versa. the existence of one is both sufficient and necessary for the existence of the other. but why stop there? why not also allow the idea of a "trio" to exist? after all, we could just say that a "pair" is two-thirds of a "trio". so our two electrons are simply a fraction of what would be a "trio". and then why not allow positrons to exist as well? the electron is negatively charged (uh-oh...is that just another concept as well?), and negative can't exist without positive, can it? the electron is simply the negative anti-particle partner of the positive positron, so how could one exist without the other? at this point, why not allow the existence of elephants with sharks on their backs, stomping and devouring everything in their paths? if jack handey can think it up, it exists as far as your "pair" is concerned.
so it seems that if one idea can exist, then it's a pandora's box we're opening up. every other possible idea must be allowed to exist as well. and since we'd erroneously be assuming that the existence of ideas is equivalent to concrete existence, all of those things that the ideas represent would actually have to exist as well.
the ultimate point is that ideas and concepts are not only quite interesting, but also very useful and practical for us as humans. however, as far as concrete existence is concerned, they're doomed to an eternity in existential purgatory. when all is said and done, concepts don't exist outside of the neural circuits that mark their existence. they transcend reality. they exist in imagination. and only in imagination.
so, back to the original question. what exists? i'm tempted to say that all that exists is all that exists. it sounds like nonsense, but when it becomes clear in your mind, it quickly seems to be the only thing that makes any sense at all. let it roll around in your head for a bit first, then holla at me.
one.
jh..
what actually exists?
lets think about this. what actually concretely exists? do you and i exist, objectively? what are we, anyway?
the retort sounds loudly, "i'm me. are you blind?" i don't think i'm blind, but maybe i am thinking about things differently. it seems to me that it's possible that the 'you' you claim to be only exists in the mind's eye of the beholder. because in the strictly objective physical sense, you're nothing more than a collection of atoms, ions, and energy. in fact, at any given moment, the atoms that make up 'you' are being swapped for millions upon millions of other atoms in the space around and in you. the skin you wear today isn't the same skin as you wore yesterday, and there's about zero chance that it even contains an atom of the skin you were in when you were born. 'you' are being continuously built up and broken down, every second of every day of your life.
my point is this: virtually nothing in the universe remains static. everything is continually changing. atoms move, change form, combine, split, decay, are created from the vacuum. the 'you' that exists at this instant in time (if indeed you can actually pinpoint an instant in time), i can promise you, is not the exact same as the 'you' that exists at this instant in time.
nor at this instant.
and most certainly not at this one.
do you see what i mean? the whole, of course, is much greater than the sum of the parts. i am, after all, sitting here writing this for you to read, all the while very much conscious of 'myself'. but does the 'me' that exists in my mind actually exist in the objective physical universe? or is it just the universe that exists in the universe?
if there existed only two electrons in the universe (asid from the vacuum), i would argue that a 'pair' of electrons still wouldn't exist. "preposterous!" you scream. "you just said there are two electrons. that's a pair!" yes, yes i did say that there are two electrons. but i also said that those two electrons are all that exist. it seems to me that a 'pair' isn't a thing, but an idea representing the co-existence of two things (also potentially just concepts themselves). does a "pair" exist in this rather empty, two-electron universe? if your answer is yes, then my question is how? how does that thing exist as something other than an idea? it seems to me that a "pair" is just an idea. so how could it possibly exist without anyone there to think it? and for that matter, if you stubbornly insist that the pair does in deed exist in our made-up two-atom universe, then does that not mean that everything (and i mean e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g) else must also exist in this two-atom universe? it would have to. if a "pair" exists there, then the idea of a pair must exist. and vice versa. the existence of one is both sufficient and necessary for the existence of the other. but why stop there? why not also allow the idea of a "trio" to exist? after all, we could just say that a "pair" is two-thirds of a "trio". so our two electrons are simply a fraction of what would be a "trio". and then why not allow positrons to exist as well? the electron is negatively charged (uh-oh...is that just another concept as well?), and negative can't exist without positive, can it? the electron is simply the negative anti-particle partner of the positive positron, so how could one exist without the other? at this point, why not allow the existence of elephants with sharks on their backs, stomping and devouring everything in their paths? if jack handey can think it up, it exists as far as your "pair" is concerned.
so it seems that if one idea can exist, then it's a pandora's box we're opening up. every other possible idea must be allowed to exist as well. and since we'd erroneously be assuming that the existence of ideas is equivalent to concrete existence, all of those things that the ideas represent would actually have to exist as well.
the ultimate point is that ideas and concepts are not only quite interesting, but also very useful and practical for us as humans. however, as far as concrete existence is concerned, they're doomed to an eternity in existential purgatory. when all is said and done, concepts don't exist outside of the neural circuits that mark their existence. they transcend reality. they exist in imagination. and only in imagination.
so, back to the original question. what exists? i'm tempted to say that all that exists is all that exists. it sounds like nonsense, but when it becomes clear in your mind, it quickly seems to be the only thing that makes any sense at all. let it roll around in your head for a bit first, then holla at me.
one.
jh..
1 Comments:
"I think therefore I am." I, The Prophet, can only prove that I exist. Because I am cognitive of myself and my free will (if this truly exists), I know that I am here. I cannot prove that you Jack Handey truly exists, you could be merely a mirage in a giant dream I label 'life'. That's the way I've always pondered existence. My philosophizing buddy and I discussed this once, and that was our conclusion. To be honest, I kinda missed your point on the whole 2 electron example. It did however remind me of my ponderings of the fourth dimension. I mean, if one idea exists, then another must. If we can fathom one, two and three dimensional objects mustn't a fourth dimensional object exist?
Post a Comment
<< Home