The possibility of Existence

[SamuelVIII]

Over the years I have given much thought to zero, and something,( anything, everything, infinity); and come to the conclusion that they are impossible. This takes what would seem a + and a -, and give us a - -. Within our physical universe, zero is impossible as it is an absence of anything, no dark, no space, no dimension of any kind; there would be nowhere to put it. And if it did exist, before the physical universe, it would be impossible to create something from nothing. A double negative, poles apart. Could this cosmic contradiction somehow create Its own energy, and thereby the Universe?

[Eduk]

Yup existence is logically impossible when viewed from the constraint of causality.
I think there are a few conclusions that could be drawn from this.
1. Causality isn't fully true. It might be true enough for the majority of human purposes but perhaps it is possible to view non-causality at certain tolerances. Maybe one day we will have a working theory on how the universe is possible. The answer is unknown currently but maybe one day knowable.
2. Causality is absolutely true within the universe but not outside the universe. Outside of the universe human terms make no sense. Outside is likely meaningless, causality is likely meaningless, anything goes and we can draw no conclusions. The answer is unknown and unknowable unless we develop technology to both leave the universe and still function (or evolve thusly). But this is pure science fiction.

[SamuelVIII]

Yup existence is logically impossible when viewed from the constraint of causality.

Now take the next step, consider the logical impossibility of zero. These concepts are more than just words, if zero is impossible and anything is impossible; where does that leave us? We know we are here, but what if we're not, as well? Could existence flicker on and off, so fast as to be imperceptible? Do we exist in spite of, and because of, it being impossible?

[Eduk]

Just to be clear existence is only logically impossible when viewed by human constructs such as causality. We clearly do exist.

The conclusions you draw from this logic make no sense. Existing because it's impossible to exist is a clear contradiction. If zero is impossible it does not follow that anything is impossible. Existence flicking on and off doesn't mean anything.

Things like zero, infinity, eternal, infallible etc throw up lots of logical impossibilities. This points to nothing other than they are human concepts. Good enough for the use they were intended but they aren't some higher hidden truth, they are just ill defined.

[SamuelVIII]

Just to be clear existence is only logically impossible when viewed by human constructs such as causality. We clearly do exist.

Obviously, I said as much; existence must be a contradiction. If zero were the state of affairs, how could anything ever come from it? And if what we see is real; where did it come from? If the conclusions I draw from my logic make no sense; what conclusions would you draw?

[Eduk]

I already gave two possible options above.

In short, the average person should draw no conclusions from the knowledge that according to causality existence is impossible.

If it is something that particularly interests you then I recommend becoming a theoretical physicist. Obviously quite a hard thing for the average person to do though.

There are no doubt other options. But many things are unknown and even slightly chipping away at what is unknown is a significant achievement. For the majority of us we need to just accept that we don't know and we likely never will.

[Belindi]

Even if Descartes was mistaken about there being a subject for thinking, nevertheless thinking is happening. Therefore thinking at least exists.

[Eduk]

I think I am therefore I think.

[Belindi]

I think I am therefore I think.

But the I is in a state of constant change and is not fully completed until the moment of its death. Therefore what exists is not entities or states of being but change itself

[SamuelVIII]

Even if Descartes was mistaken about there being a subject for thinking, nevertheless thinking is happening. Therefore thinking at least exists.

It's not thinking that gets the job done, it's knowing, on a deeply emotional level. Life exists to allow the Universe knowledge of It's own existence; without which, it couldn't exist.

[Eduk]

Even if beings don't exist that doesn't prove that change does.

[Belindi]

But that something is happening is axiomatic

-- Updated June 24th, 2017, 9:36 am to add the following --

because you and I know from immediate experience that something is happening

[Eduk]

We both call ourselves I too.

[Belindi]

We both call ourselves I because that is how English refers to first person singular. Excepting the Queen and Mrs Thatcher of course.
It's just a convention. Cogito has the first person singular in it too. I wonder if there is a language with no personal pronouns. Does anyone know?

[SamuelVIII]

Looks easy enough to get lost in this existence. I had posted earlier to Eduk's statement that he/she had pointed out two alternatives to my theory, but didn't quote, or explain enough. Something like that, nothing rude I can assure you; I just have problems with complexity, that's why I simplify; until I start rambling.
Anyhow, I still don't see the alternatives, focusing on causality and pointing out the human perspective, comes nowhere near answering the question. And, theoretical physicists are looking fairly average themselves, with their 'singularity'; what are they on?

The question, lest we forget, is; zero is impossible, and something is impossible; conclusions?

I am reminded of the 'equal and opposite reaction' here; could the double negative actually conform to the laws of physics?