Ignorant, if you follow my posts, you will see that it's not my usual habit to post oneliners. Only when someone gives the impression of fundamental dishonesty by not offering the slightest bit of themselves or their own opinions, I get a little bit irritated and I tend to not believe the persona to be what it claims to be.

This is not an interrogation, this is a discussion board.

(April 17, 2016 at 5:20 am)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(April 15, 2016 at 4:05 pm)Ignorant Wrote: Does anything exist necessarily? In other words, is there anything that simply cannot NOT exist?

Without time or space you don't have anything at all.

Fair enough. That is another way of saying the existence of "anything at all" is conditional upon the existence of time or space.

Is the existence of time or space conditional upon anything else? If not, THAT'S AMAZING AND SPACE-TIME IS THE MOST INTERESTING THING IN THE UNIVERSE!

If space-time IS conditional upon anything, then it is only a conditional, i.e. contingent thing. Do you think ONLY conditional things exist?

(April 17, 2016 at 5:41 am)abaris Wrote: Ignorant, if you follow my posts, you will see that it's not my usual habit to post oneliners. Only when someone gives the impression of fundamental dishonesty by not offering the slightest bit of themselves or their own opinions, I get a little bit irritated and I tend to not believe the persona to be what it claims to be.

This is not an interrogation, this is a discussion board.

I have followed your posts, which is why your activity here is so confusing to me. You usually contribute good things to a discussion. How is it fundamentally dishonest to ask questions and hesitate to give answers? If you follow my posts (which means read them), you will often find that my question includes a lot about what I think about the topic.

The OP was a question, not an argument.

I do one liners all the time.

(April 17, 2016 at 5:46 am)Ignorant Wrote:

(April 17, 2016 at 5:20 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: Without time or space you don't have anything at all.

Fair enough. That is another way of saying the existence of "anything at all" is conditional upon the existence of time or space.

Is the existence of time or space conditional upon anything else? If not, THAT'S AMAZING AND SPACE-TIME IS THE MOST INTERESTING THING IN THE UNIVERSE!

If space-time IS conditional upon anything, then it is only a conditional, i.e. contingent thing. Do you think ONLY conditional things exist?

My thoughts, for something to exist it must have duration i.e. a period of time in which it is existent, it must also have a place to exist.
I think that probably space time is and always has been eternal and that stuff just happens in it. Probably because of the madness that is quantum physics.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/crit...veneziano/

(April 17, 2016 at 8:36 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: My thoughts, for something to exist it must have duration i.e. a period of time in which it is existent, it must also have a place to exist.
I think that probably space time is and always has been eternal and that stuff just happens in it. Probably because of the madness that is quantum physics.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/crit...veneziano/

Quantum physics is fascinating for sure. So two things I found interesting in your response:

1) You do seem to think that there is a necessary thing, i.e. its non-existence is not possible, viz. space-time. It just exists. 

2) You said that "for something to exist, it must have... a period of time in which it is existent, it must also have a place to exist". Doesn't it fascinate you that, somehow, this does not apply to the existence of space-time? Space-time's existence doesn't require a duration of time nor a place... it IS its own duration of time and space. It IS its own condition for existence. That seems to make space-time the most interesting thing which exists. What do you think?

cannot NOT exist

(April 15, 2016 at 4:05 pm)Ignorant Wrote: Does anything exist necessarily? In other words, is there anything that simply cannot NOT exist?

You've basically open up a war of semantics: what is existence? What is necessary? What do you mean by "cannot NOT exist" - a double negative which basically means "can exist"?

It's a nice way to get attention as no one will agree to whatever definition anyone proposes, and this thread can go one for a long time. Is your life that boring that you need to open up this can of worms?

(April 17, 2016 at 9:46 am)little_monkey Wrote: You've basically open up a war of semantics: what is existence? What is necessary? What do you mean by "cannot NOT exist" - a double negative which basically means "can exist"?

All good questions I think. Good enough to grab your attention! 

As for "cannot NOT exist", you are right that it is a double negative which seems, literally, to mean, "can exist". So how would you word it? Some things' existences are contingent/conditional upon the existence of some other thing. How would describe any thing that isn't?

Heh, he replied to your "war of semantics" with a question about more semantics.

If you read some of these posts with Lisa Simpsons voice in your head as the narrator it's pretty funny.

(April 17, 2016 at 11:42 am)Goosebump Wrote: Heh, he replied to your "war of semantics" with a question about more semantics.

See now why I don't give this guy any serious consideration?