# Objective existence



## heusdens (Feb 25, 2007)

To say that there is a reality outside of our own mind is to say that there are objects to our senses, which exist outside of our mind and can be known to our minds through the senses.

We are a reality to things other then ourselves, and other things outside ourselves are a reality to us.

In this way reality is objectively bound as things existing seperate from each other and having objective relations between each other.

What we can conclude from this is that the universe (as the total sum of all objective relations in existence in all space and all time) does not exist, since it has no seperate reality outside of itself with which it can have objective relations.

It may sound counter-intuitive, but yet this is the case if we apply strictly that we can only hold things to exist if that existence is based on objective relations.

In the way the universe is defined, it can not have anything outside or apart of it, and there is no way to define objective relationships for the universe in total.

Everything we know that exists apart and independend of our mind does have objective existence as there are objective relationships definable for their existence.

Funny thing is that taking everything together, it just disappears.......

The good thing is though, we do no longer need to be bothered how the universe began, or what it was caused by, since those are meaningless: the universe does not exist in the first place!


----------



## j d worthington (Feb 26, 2007)

"There is nothing but the Void and you; and you ... are but a thought."

Nifty solipsistic paradox. Complete nonsense, but fun.


----------



## j d worthington (Feb 26, 2007)

Actually, to avoid the flip for a moment... I believe I see what you're saying. The problem is that language (specifically terminology) is relative, as well, depending on your frame of reference. "Objective" in this case means vastly different things (albeit etymologically related) depending on your starting point (philosophy or physics), much as "space" has many meanings.

Simply put, the universe _does_ exist, as all objective, testable evidence shows repeatedly; though our definition of "universe" may require some alteration as we learn more; and what we define as the universe now (the whole of spacetime) may not be the whole, should we find ways to prove the existence of "universes"/realities separate from ours (or even separate in general, with perhaps occasional connections under certain fleeting conditions... a possibility that has been posited); just as the _word _atom ("indivisible") no longer applies, yet is still used for the sake of convenience due to historical circumstance; or "materialism", which is no longer the same thing as it was before Einstein, either.


----------



## littlemissattitude (Feb 26, 2007)

j. d. worthington said:


> Simply put, the universe _does_ exist, as all objective, testable evidence shows repeatedly...



And even if it didn't, it wouldn't make any difference as a practical matter because it appears to exist and we appear to act and react to it as it appears to act and react to us.


----------



## Riker (Mar 10, 2007)

I was going to try to pm you but I realized I didn't know how.  I find that as a very intersting theory and I'm curious as to where you read that at.  Jd pointed out that there could be seperate existences from us and that may be the answer to our 'existing' from your perspective.  A good read on this philosophy is _On The Plurality Of Worlds_ by David Lewis.  It goes on to explain other possible worlds (universes) using modal logic.


----------

