(April 15, 2016 at 6:14 pm)ApeNotKillApe Wrote:(April 15, 2016 at 5:28 pm)Ignorant Wrote: I'm not sure I share your meaning of self-evidence. What does that mean when you write it?
If everything necessarily exists and cannot not exist, how does this view account for quantum fluctuation (i.e. some particles begin and then cease to exist within a fraction of a second)? If a particle ceases to exist, it wasn't existing necessarily/of necessity, but rather it happened to exist. Necessity is not the same as determinism. Determinism uses the word "necessary" in the sense that, given a certain set of causes and conditions, certain and determined effects occur necessarily. Necessity in the sense I am proposing means that for a given necessary thing, its non-existence is not possible.
The non-existence of existence is not possible, by definition. And what does it matter if those particles pop into existence for only a small amount of time? The duration of their existence doesn't mean anything.
If the particle pops-OUT of existence, then it no longer exists. Its non-existence was a real possibility (demonstrated by its ceasing to exist). If its non-existence was a real possibility, then it couldn't have been a "necessary" thing (a necessary thing's non-existence is not possible). What do you think?
