Imagine you have a box filled with marbles of different colours. If you shake the box (assuming there is enough space for every marble to move around), the position of any given marble relative to other marbles in the box will change, and the marbles will adopt a new configuration once you stop shaking the box. If you shake the box continuously, the position of any given marble relative to other marbles in the box will change continuously. Now, imagine you have two boxes filled with marbles. If you shake both boxes continuously, the pattern of change of all marbles in a box will most likely be different from the pattern of change of all marbles in the other box. Based on this, I assume that the pattern of change of all things in the universe is a particular pattern of change. This pattern of change must depend in the properties of the things that change in position (in the case of the box of marbles, it is the marbles; in the case of the universe, every thing that exists). So, existence would be not just the marbles (or the things that exist), but it should also include their pattern of change. In other words, existence is a pattern of change of things that exist (if there are not things that exist, there is not existence; and if there is not a pattern of change, there is not existence either). This pattern of change has the property of being the pattern of change of the things that exist. The pattern of change is limited by how much things that exist can change relative to one another (assuming things have a limited number of configurations relative to other things). The pattern of change has a rate of change for itself (not all things change at the same rate, but the system containing all things that exist must change constantly). Where do things that exist come from? Are things that exist unlimited in number? And if they are, is their pattern of change infinite or will it repeat at some point? How much things that exist can move relative to one another? And if there is not a limit to how much they can move, is their pattern of change infinite or will it repeat at some point?

there is no real composite entity "existence" which can be broken down into all the things that exist. — Janus

It can. When you classify things into categories, I think you are breaking down existence into its composites.



I would describe existence as the present state of things that exist which is subject to constant change. Thus, existence changes; the present state of things changes. So, I would say it is a concrete entity. That said, I cannot pull myself apart from existence; I am one of those things which its present state changes, and as such I must look at existence as an abstract thing. I can break into parts a grain of sand, but I cannot break into parts (at least physically) a galaxy, for example; but this does not mean the galaxy is not a composite. I think existence is a set that is a part of itself. There are things that exist, and they exist in a particular state; this particular state exists, and it is existence.

Existence is the set that has the property of containing all existing things. No?

Then "the whole" does not exist, and composites are composites of nothing.

Existence is infinite, existence is not limited as there is [not] nothing beyond existence to limit or restrict it. — daniel j lavender

What if the limit is intrinsic to existence? what if it limits itself?

It does not have extent, nor duration. — Banno

What about space and time? are they not existence (and I meant "existence")? An existence without extent and duration would be necessarily static. Don't you think existence changes?

Are laws an agreement between human beings and an institution, or are they an agreement between human beings?

I can prove that I know math if I can teach someone how to do math (properly).

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/wind/

A thing cannot not exist (everything must exist) since an omnipotent being exists. A thing that cannot not exist must exist at some point (it cannot not exist). Therefore, if an omnipotent being exists all things must be at some point, so that all things fulfil their quality of being incapable of not existing.

In other words, since God can do X, then X cannot not exist.

@Bartricks All things an omnipotent being is able to do exist since an omnipotent being is able to do them (a thing cannot not exist since an omnipotent being can do any thing).
An omnipotent being exists; therefore, all things an omnipotent being is able to do exist; that is, every possible and impossible thing exists since it can be done by an omnipotent being which exists.
There are two scenarios, either god exists or it does not. God exists. God is an omnipotent being; therefore, all things exist. All things. Not all the possible things, neither all the impossible things, but all things exist if an omnipotent being exists.

They can! they are omnipotent.

They could destroy each other; they are omnipotent.

That they can does not mean that they will.

@Bartricks Can more than one god exist?

Hold your breath and see what happens when you are around one minute.

Someone who believes in it.

This is my argument. To be omnipotent, God would be required to be able to do every possible and impossible thing while maintaining its omnipotence. If God got rid of its omnipotence or limited its potence, God would not be omnipotent any more. In the case God maintained the quality of omnipotence after getting rid of its omnipotence, or after limiting its potence, God would not be truly not-omnipotent, meaning that God would not be able to be entirely not-omnipotent (see the problem?).

At any time, an omnipotent being could decide to be omnipotent, not-omnipotent, or both. God is an omnipotent being (your argument). How do you know it is omnipotent when god could be either of the three things above?

How do you know an omnipotent being is omnipotent when it could be not-omnipotent?

So, an omnipotent being could be not-omnipotent (at the same time). Right?

Could an omnipotent being do something that is both logical and illogical?

.

Actually no...the necessary existent is a necessary existent even if it exists alone and I can't see why you're thinking otherwise. — BARAA

Why is the necessary existent necessary? Why is it not just an existent? What attribute is it that gives the necessary existent the quality of necessary?

To me, it seems that Avicenna's argument is based on the fact that a chain of contingents existents exists. If things that need a cause to exist did not exist, which - from what I understand - is a possibility for contingent existents, would their "cause" have the quality of necessary? How could their cause be necessary prior to their existence? To me, it seems that a necessary cause is necessary if and only if what it causes exists or will exist.

Reading the argument makes me wonder the following:

If the chain of contingent existents has an origin (it has an external cause, the necessary existent; which means that the chain was caused by the necessary existent), there must have been a time in which it did not exist. At this time, there would be only the necessary existent. However, the necessary existent is necessary if an only if there is at least one chain of contingent existents (assuming there could be more than one, and this is just an assumption) whose existence depends on the necessary existent, meaning that at the time in which only the necessary contingent existent exists, the necessary existent would not really be necessary.

Also, if the existence of contingent existents causes the chain of existents to exist, why would it need an additional cause to exist (the external cause)?

Second, fundamental unit of time, now defined in terms of the radiation frequency at which atoms of the element cesium change from one state to another.

from: https://www.britannica.com/science/second

Oh baby, don't hurt me
Don't hurt me
No more

I tried to translate it the best I could. Really nice theme.

El Cuarteto de Nos: Contrapunto para Humano y Computadora



The first is the charm
The third is the third
So today I challenge anyone
To come up here and face me
Whoever accepts is a suicidal
Who overrates himself
Cause nobody can beat me now
Not even the world champion coplero
or a freestyle rapper
or the best computer

Not even the best computer?
Do you, who are a mere human, say that?
You walk so proud
But your time has come
Because your ego devours you
And you are absolutely convinced you are superior
But with a sample it is enough
Today the bombs that created your minds
They are smarter
That the idiots who launch them

The idiots who lunch them
They don't represent me
But to those who invent them
Maybe you owe your trust
And although it seems like a joke
You owe your life to their invention
And I say "life" with compassion
To an unreasonable composite
Of circuits, chips and cables
Without soul or heart

Without soul or heart?
Look just who says it
When a bathroom you locate
Wash your mouth with soap
Because it's an aberration
Your morale tied with wires
Did a swarm sting your eyes?
Or is it just that you don't want to see
That there are people just like you
Thirsty and hungry

Thirsty and hungry?
And what do I have to do with that?
If those who don't do what needs to be done
They are irresponsible
Meanwhile unpresentable
A machine criticizes me
Feeling is manufactured
Without knowing what a father is
And not even on Mother's Day
Know what it means

Know what it means?
You are like Pilate
who washes his hands and is ungrateful
And his race does not dignify
Because, let's see, how do you explain to me?
That you have forgotten your elders
Forgetting what they have given you
You treat them like an inept
Disrespect them
And abandon them

Abandoned them?
If something similar happens to me
Is it because I deserve it?
Or did I fail who is besides me?
Like an entity without a past
You question with treachery
"I think therefore I exist" he would say
Our friend Descartes
But we had to think about you
Because otherwise you would not exist

Because otherwise I would not exist?
Did we get transcendental?
Your existential problems
You can't solve them, not even with philosophy
It would shame me
Not knowing what I am and I challenge him (Descartes)
They look at me suspiciously
And you still argue bitterly
If you really descended from a monkey
Or from a guy who lives in heaven

From a guy who lives in heaven?
It's a sharp reflection
I prefer to have that doubt
Than to be a piece of iron
I am my own front man
I suggest you listen to me
I choose what I prefer
And freedom you don't know what it is
You do what you can
But I do what I want

But I do what I want?
And you are prisoners of your routine?
In your houses, streets and offices
Corrupted by money
You don't know what it's like to be austere
Consuming pure shine
I tell you this and I humiliate you
The only organs that work for you
And that for sure you won't donate them
They are your wallet your the pocket

Our wallets and our pockets?
How do you think they made you?
The silver they got
For your plates and screws
Someone spent a good amount of cash
To be able to buy you
So don't send yourself the part
Because you're already getting me tired
And I'm seriously thinking
Shortly unplug you

Unplug me shortly?
How simple is your science
Resort to violence
As an argument to silence me
But I'm not going to shut up
And sooner rather than later
I see that my plea burns
And I alter his biorhythm
Although I can not imagine an algorithm
That could turn out to be so cowardly

Automaton

Wild

Artifice

Hypocrites

Clone

Primitive

Entelechy

Racist

Anathema

Intolerant

Exegete

Egocentric

Libel

Cavemen

Alien

Corrupt

Hardware

Inhumans

Go!

Go

Since the worlds are both altogether different and materially identical, they can only differ in something immaterial. That would then be "being". — SolarWind

What about the space each world occupies? is it also identical for both worlds?

Do you consider the-deficiency-of-some-quality as something that exists?

Do both parts of the ying-yang always exist? Are they opposites which have existence as a constantly common characteristic, or could one of the opposites actually never exist (is there a scenario where there is only ying or only yang)?

I would say that the "no-thing" you are referring to is empty space which is something in itself (correct me if I am wrong). The nothingness I am referring to is the complete absence of existing things (a dimensionless, limitless, hypothetical state).

An idea of a horse is not the same as the horse. Nothingness as an idea can exist, nothingness itself cannot.

No. The post is about the impossibility of a state deprived of existence as the reason for which there is a state populated with existing things. A state deprived of existence is impossible.

I guess you could. We could describe a scenario in which this conversation between you and me will never happen; since the conversation already took place (or is taking place) such scenario cannot exist.

Why do you ask?

That is doughnutlessness.

The post is not about nothingness; I thought I made it clear it cannot exist. All I said was that the reason there is stuff all around us instead of nothing is because nothingness cannot exist. It is impossible for there to be nothing, therefore there must be something. All there was, there is, and always will be is existence; and this existence arises from the incapacity of nothingness "to be", which I think is different from there always being existence just because.

The universe arose out of necessity since nothingness cannot exist.

To be is to have a limit, and there is nothing that has no limit since any state of existence (or non-existence) is limited by its own nature. Infinity cannot be anything else than infinity and that is its limit. Nothingness cannot be anything else than nothingness which means that it has a limit. Since nothingness describes a state of zero existence (absolute non-existence), that nothingness has a limit (a state of non-existence would be a state of non-existence and nothing else) requires that something exists; that is, nothingness can't never be [the "existence" of a state deprived of things that exist (nothingness) would necessarily induce a state populated by things that exist due to its limited nature], and it is this characteristic about nothingness which is responsible for the origin of the universe. That a state of nothingness cannot be forces the existence of a state of absolute existence.

What produces the thought waves?

I have always ask myself in what form a signal transduction event that's been initiated at one of our senses ends (what is the final form of a signal transduction event?). Are thoughts the end step in the dissipation of such signalling events? I mean, a nervous impulse initiated at the retina, for example, must end somewhere in the brain (the visual cortex, if I am correct); but what is the end result of such impulse ending at the visual cortex (or wherever it ends - since it certainly cannot go on forever). Do you understand my question?