A Fundamental Axiom of Existence
- Edgar L Owen
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 2
- Joined: December 3rd, 2016, 6:08 pm
A Fundamental Axiom of Existence
Something rather than nothing exists because only existence can exist. Non-existence or nothingness cannot exist because nothingness is non-existence and only existence can exist. Thus nothingness cannot exist and can never have existed. Only existence exists or has ever existed or can ever exist. Thus there is not and never was and never could or can be a nothingness out of which something came into being. There is and has always been only existence and whatever forms exist within it.
There is not even nothing outside of existence, or before or after or beyond existence. There is no outside or before or after or beyond existence. There is only existence and everything that exists is part of that existence.
Thus ‘Existence exists’, or more concisely just ‘Existence!’ which implies the necessary existence of existence, is the self-validating self-necessitating fundamental axiom of reality upon which all else depends. This is the ultimate turtle upon which all other turtles stand and the ultimate source of the entire logical structure of reality (Wikipedia, Turtles all the way down). Because the fact of existence is self-evident the axiom is self-evidently true. You would not be reading these words if existence didn’t exist.
At first this may appear to be a mere sophism or tautology but it accurately expresses the actual logic of reality and is the only possible self-contained explanation for the fundamental fact of existence.
One might argue the axiom of existence is circular and of course it is but that is precisely the point since the fundamental axiom of reality must be circular; but it must also be self-evident and meaningfully so. A meaningful circular self-necessitating fundamental axiom is much preferable to a set of axioms that has no underlying logical foundation such as those of Euclidean geometry.
Because there never was a nothingness out of which something was created there is no need for a creator or creation event. All the interminable disputes about creators and the creation of the universe immediately become illogical and meaningless and must be abandoned. The axiom of existence immediately renders much of philosophy and religious doctrine moot and answers the first question of why something rather than nothing exists.
Of course the big bang was the beginning of the universe as we know it but this was an actualization event rather than a creation event, in which the actual particles that make up the universe were actualized out of the quantum vacuum (Universal Reality, The New Theory of Everything, p. 14).
Edgar L. Owen
- Spiral Out
- Posts: 5014
- Joined: June 26th, 2012, 10:22 am
Re: A Fundamental Axiom of Existence
Your statement would more accurately read "You would not be reading these words if you didn’t exist." And therein lies the fundamental flaw in your axiom. Your axiom ignores minds and subjective experience altogether and assumes all is strictly objective. Without these minds, your axiom is at best meaningless and at worst impossible!Edgar L Owen wrote:You would not be reading these words if existence didn’t exist.
You're not speaking to objects here, you're speaking to minds.
-
- Posts: 3601
- Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm
Re: A Fundamental Axiom of Existence
That there is something rather than nothing is a give not a necessity. It is axiomatically necessary, but that is because without existence there would be no axioms. There is no satisfactory answer to the question of why there must be something, only answers that are contingent upon the fact that not only is there something but the kind of something that can ask questions like this.Thus ‘Existence exists’, or more concisely just ‘Existence!’ which implies the necessary existence of existence, is the self-validating self-necessitating fundamental axiom of reality upon which all else depends.
The claim of the existence of existence suffers from Aristotle’s third man argument. Things exists but existence is not one of the things that exist.
This treats nothing or nothingness as something that was not. If there WAS then it had to have existed.Because there never was a nothingness …
We can know nothing of nothing. Perhaps it is the case that something from nothing is incomprehensible because nothing is incomprehensible. I say perhaps as a way of inviting consideration rather than as a conclusion.
It addressed the problem of creatio ex nihilo but most of philosophy and much of religious doctrine does not rest on this question.The axiom of existence immediately renders much of philosophy and religious doctrine moot and answers the first question of why something rather than nothing exists.
-
- Posts: 94
- Joined: September 28th, 2015, 12:57 am
Re: A Fundamental Axiom of Existence
than a thing in and of itself. It is not something physical. It is not an actual phenomenon. It is somewhat more subtle than this
-
- Posts: 1347
- Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm
Re: A Fundamental Axiom of Existence
-
- Posts: 1104
- Joined: March 18th, 2011, 4:57 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Anaximander
Re: A Fundamental Axiom of Existence
- Mosesquine
- Posts: 189
- Joined: September 3rd, 2016, 4:17 am
Re: A Fundamental Axiom of Existence
Many philosophers tried to explain existence as a kind of property. Understanding existence as a property is against Quine's understanding it.
The most important issue here is that the truth conditions of existential statements depend on how we take existence. Suppose that we consider the statement like "Socrates exists." If we take existence as quantifier, then the truth condition goes as follows:
(∃x)(x = a)
where 'a' is a symbolized name as 'Socrates'.
However, if we take existence as a property, then the truth condition would be as follows:
Fa
where 'Fx' is a predicate translated as 'x exists', and 'a' means 'Socrates'.
Understanding existence determines the truth conditions of existential statements.
- The Beast
- Posts: 1403
- Joined: July 7th, 2013, 10:32 pm
Re: A Fundamental Axiom of Existence
- Socraticpupil
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 5
- Joined: February 9th, 2017, 8:22 pm
Re: A Fundamental Axiom of Existence
Illogically, we say "Nothing is there"all the time but we speak relative to some object we desire, what we really say is "Nothing important is there".
I would argue nothing exists, right now, presently. Nothing exists at all times and does nothing to prevent the existence of other things. The question of something rather than nothing is flawed. It implies mutual exclusivity which is not fundamentally true.
Nothing does exist presently. Therefore, it is not fundamental that Existence is the only possible thing that can exist and therefore exists. There could have been nothing, indeed, there is nothing now.
- Rr6
- Posts: 1034
- Joined: April 5th, 2015, 2:20 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: R. Bucky Fuller
Re: A Fundamental Axiom of Existence
.....1a} There exists metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts and they are not spatial. No spatial things
............1a1} There exists absolute{ non-variable } and relative{ variable } truths ergo absolute and relative existence.
............1a2} I-verse ergo ego.
--------------------------line-of-demarcation------------------------------------
.......1b} There exists metaphysical-2, macro-infinite non-occupied space. No things in this location of space.
........1c} There exists occupied space. These things are physical/energy/time/motion and have an associated sine-wave ^v- /\/\/\/\/\/-v^.
The above are the primary set of existence aka God.
Our finite, occupied space Universe--- aka Uni-V-erse ----is a subset of the greater set of 1, 1, 1aa, 1b and 1c.
None have offerred any rational, logical common sense, that, adds to or invalidates my above givens as stated.
I-verse ie. ego allows for expression of absolute truths and perversions of relative truths.
The greatest perversion of ego/I-verse, is the statement 'I am God'. This is one of the greatest perversions because the two are diametric <------> opposites.
I exist within my environment.
I and my enviroment together, are God/Universe/"U"niverse.
Fuller states it his way.
Universe is everything including me,
Environment is everything excluding me.
r6
- -1-
- Posts: 878
- Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am
Re: A Fundamental Axiom of Existence
What does this mean? "Computational universe"? It can add numbers? or it is an adding of numbers? Is there a meaning to "computational" which is outside of mere computing? if no, there is no other meaning, then what does the above mean? If there is, yes, there is a meaning outside of mere computing, then what is that meaning?Edgar L Owen wrote:It implies the universe is computational.
- Rr6
- Posts: 1034
- Joined: April 5th, 2015, 2:20 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: R. Bucky Fuller
Re: A Fundamental Axiom of Existence
Yes, metaphyscial-1, mind/intellect/concepts exists.
Does this above compute--- make sense, seem reasonable ---? Yes, it does.
Does a computer make sense? Is a computer reasonable? Yes, because its programming comes from human that designs it to compute-- make sense, seems reasonable ---.
Humans discover patterns and principles and apply these patterns and principles in support of integrity of Universe and ecological systems that sustain humans.
r6
Rr6 wrote:1} "U"niverse
.....1a} There exists metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts and they are not spatial. No spatial things
............1a1} There exists absolute{ non-variable } and relative{ variable } truths ergo absolute and relative existence.
............1a2} I-verse ergo ego.
--------------------------line-of-demarcation------------------------------------
.......1b} There exists metaphysical-2, macro-infinite non-occupied space. No things in this location of space.
........1c} There exists occupied space. These things are physical/energy/time/motion and have an associated sine-wave ^v- /\/\/\/\/\/-v^.
The above are the primary set of existence aka God.
Our finite, occupied space Universe--- aka Uni-V-erse ----is a subset of the greater set of 1, 1, 1aa, 1b and 1c.
None have offerred any rational, logical common sense, that, adds to or invalidates my above givens as stated.
I-verse ie. ego allows for expression of absolute truths and perversions of relative truths.
The greatest perversion of ego/I-verse, is the statement 'I am God'. This is one of the greatest perversions because the two are diametric <------> opposites.
I exist within my environment.
I and my enviroment together, are God/Universe/"U"niverse.
Fuller states it his way.
Universe is everything including me,
Environment is everything excluding me.
r6
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023