An object which is entirely forgotten, ceases to exist, both in the past, present and future.

Bradaction

Something that no longer exists, will eventually fade entirely from memory, and not only will it become impossible to prove that it ever existed, but it will also become impossible to disprove that it did not exist. Of course, the very existence of a debate about the neglected memory is impossible, given that one would have to have heard of its existence in the first place.

An example of such a debate would be a situation where all traces of humanity were suddenly removed from the universe, with no other being knowing the about the existence of humanity, is it a lie to say that humanity ever existed.

If something has no effect on the universe, and then itself fades from said universe, through both memory and physical existence, then it does not exist, and it never has existed.

One could instead argue that this ‘object’ for sake of simplicity, merely lived an existence that was ‘invisible’. But how does one define existence? Is it an object that changes the future to any extent at all, no matter how small?

I define existence as something is experienced, something that changes the universe, and something that changes the future. For example, an atom experiences its own existence, it changes the structures of the universe, and its presence alters the future.

Once all three of these criteria have stopped being checked, not only does the object cease to exist, but it also ceases to exist in the past, present, and future.

The universe itself faces this fate, so perhaps it is inaccurate to describe the universe as a criterion for existence.

When the universe eventually dies, and heat death becomes a reality, it shall return to the status quo of nothingness that existed before the universe, it shall no longer be experienced by itself, nor by a being within it, and it shall cease to alter the future for eternity. At this point, the universe ceases to exist. Not just in the present, but the future, and the past also.

We only exist now, in the present, and the truth of all entities in the universe, is that we will cease to exist. Permanently, and entirely.

This is our fate.

Pantagruel

An example of such a debate would be a situation where all traces of humanity were suddenly removed from the universe, — Bradaction

I think the key counter-argument involves the condition "where all traces are removed" - this is not what happens in reality. In reality, every event "shapes" subsequent reality, so nothing is ever really "forgotten" by the universe as a whole. Michael Leyton wrote an interesting book Symmetry, Causality, and Mind, in which he considers how the mind recovers causal history from shapes; it is a decent read.

Bradaction

every event "shapes" subsequent reality, so nothing is ever really "forgotten" by the universe as a whole

↪Pantagruel

This is also something I considered in writing this post, as its an extremely strong argument. It appears then that the only situation in which this occur would be the end of the universe itself, in which the universe would be unable to retain any memory of the past.

The problem with my response, however, comes from the fact that, as you say,

every event shapes subsequent reality.

Perhaps upon reaching the end of the universe, a fate which is pre-determined, that any previous event did not shape that reality, a reality in which the universe does not exist, and thus all previous events are forgotten.

As for the book, I will definitely check it out. Sounds like a great read :).

Pantagruel

It appears then that the only situation in which this occur would be the end of the universe itself, in which the universe would be unable to retain any memory of the past. — Bradaction

Yes, this does look like a 'hard stop' to everything. Unless perhaps there is an "information dimension"?

Bradaction

Unless perhaps there is an "information dimension"?

↪Pantagruel

I suppose the existence of an information dimension would indeed mean that memory of previous events is stored by space/time.

However, I do not believe that an information dimension would affect the future of other dimensions, and given that other dimensions cannot access this information dimension, would the universe only exist within the information dimension, failing to exist in other dimensions. This is still of course only relevant if it can be proven that a hypothetical object could be removed in the questioned circumstances hypothetically, and whether this would mean that it had ceased to exist in the past, future and present.

I suppose this scenario is similar to the tree falling in a forest question.

I am not overly knowledgeable in information theory, I will admit, so please correct me if I am wrong :).

Pantagruel

↪Bradaction

It's highly speculative, I'll admit. Nevertheless, I don't think it can be specifically disproved. The ubiquity of fractals in natural systems in my mind is suggestive that information might have a kind of ontological independence. I often wonder whether there is such a thing as "information density"....

Present awareness

The biological information to build a human body, is contained in your DNA. How did that information get there? We know it was passed down to you, from your parents, but where did that information come from?

The universe did not have a beginning nor will it end. All that ever happens is the changing of forms. Our birth, life and eventual death on the humans scale, is no different then the Big Bang, expansion and eventual death of our local universe, on a cosmic scale. What we consider to be the entire universe, that was created some 13.7 billion years ago, is just a local event in an infinite universe. Just as billions of humans are born, live and die, billions of Big Bangs have been, and will continue to occur and re-occur throughout an infinite space.

James Riley

It might be incorrect to say humanity ever existed, but a lie would require intent to deceive. In either case, a perceiver is required. As to something having no effect, I liken it to the butterfly effect. Everything has an effect. Even nothing has an effect. The ultimate effect, the cumulative effect, of all effects might be the end of the universe and all perception. But if the absence of the universe is like the tree in the forest, then by definition, there will never be nothing to not hear. The "checking" is not determinative of an objects existence. The universe, as a checker, is not the measure of all things. It simply is, and as such, the nothingness exists now. A = -A.

I once wrote a story about a species of mouse that had much wisdom and would share it with any who would listen. It happened to live in bison skulls. When humans wiped out the bison, the mouse species went extinct. Much of what we want to know is gone. I was not lying. The cure for cancer is in that plant rendered extinct in the clear-cutting of the Amazon Rain Forest. That man we executed for murder was innocent. That which never existed, did, and does. That which exists, doesn't, and never was. All these things are correct. And not. The singularity, the pre-singularity, and the heat death are all one. And not.

Bradaction

Just as billions of humans are born, live and die, billions of Big Bangs have been, and will continue to occur and re-occur throughout an infinite space

↪Present awareness

↪Pantagruel

I never considered that this was a possibility, but it sounds very interesting, and now I want to do some research on the Universe!

Bradaction

The "checking" is not determinative of an objects existence.

↪James Riley

Yes this does make a lot of sense. I suppose that regardless of whether or not the exitance of an object can be "checked" or not, doesn't change the fact that it did exist.

Even if none can check the existence of something, it still exists. I think your argument is very valid, and refutes mine with ease. :)

James Riley

Yes this does make a lot of sense. I suppose that regardless of whether or not the exitance of an object can be "checked" or not, doesn't change the fact that it did exist. — Bradaction

It’s a fur piece from the Vishnu Schist to the distal twist. Climbing from the depths of the Grand Canyon to the tip of a bison horn will cover some miles of vertical distance, and one thousand seven hundred fifty million years.

And from this are missing tens of millions of years of steps on this Grand Staircase below Escalante. It’s entirely possible that everything we know has come and gone, several times, and left no trace. Hell, there was the “Ancestral Rockies”, a mountain range arose and reduced to a sea which lay where my Rocky Mountains now stand. Again. How do you wrap your brain around that? How do you look at these granite peaks and see them melting rapidly away, like an ice cream cone on a hot summer side walk? How do you see that continental crust, that sidewalk, and the countless trillions of tons of rock above it? How do you see that as light and fluffy, floating on a magma sea? The oceanic crust is too heavy to support us. It lies beneath the waves.

How do we know there was no creature before us, better than us, smarter and more artsy? We don’t. We don’t know schist.

180 Proof

We only exist now, in the present, and the truth of all entities in the universe, is that we will cease to exist. Permanently, and entirely.

This is our fate. — Bradaction

And given that "our present" so far has lasted about two hundred and fifty millennia (and counting), this "fate" is not locally experienced to be as obliviously ephemeral as it really is in grand cosmic scheme of things. Fortunately too, we're merely proximate and not ultimate beings. So, to the degree we are wise: "We must imagine Sisyphus happy." :victory: :mask:

p.s. Given 'the impermanence of everything', one need not be 'religious' to speculate that it's plausible that even "permanent" nonexistence and obliivion are impermanent ... if you wait a few eons.

Changeling

No, because after the singularity everything that ever existed (data) will be regenerated.

hypericin

This argument presumes that time is only the instant we are currently experiencing. If this were so, I agree. The cough ofa fly 10000 years ago may have no impact on the universe: it's state would be identical to it's state has the fly not coughed. So I'm every sense the cough ceases to exist.

But our best understanding of the universe is that space and time are coequal, and the universe is a 4d hypersphere. In this case, past events have the same reality as present, as all are in a sense contemporaneous. Only memory and causality seem to separate past from present.

A simple proof I came up with a while back demonstrates this. Do you buy it?

Suppose time had a speed.
If time sped up or slowed down, the universe would speed up or slow down, everything would speed up or slow down together.
Therefore the speed of time has no observable impact on the universe.
Therefore there is no speed of time.
Therefore time is not moving.

Bradaction

one need not be 'religious' to speculate that it's plausible that even "permanent" nonexistence and obliivion are impermanent ... if you wait a few eons.

↪180 Proof

Would you need to wait at all? Wouldn't the feeling of non-existence pass as though no time had passed at all?

Bradaction

Therefore time is not moving. — hypericin

This is such a fantastic statement. Time itself is stagnant and its passing is really illusionary, and merely the name we give for the board of the sequence of passing events

Pierre-Normand

If something has no effect on the universe, and then itself fades from said universe, through both memory and physical existence, then it does not exist, and it never has existed. — Bradaction

There is a logical problem with your thesis. It has the form of a counterfactual conditional statement. It could be paraphrased thus: "If an object A exists at some time but, at a later time, no longer has an effect on anything else still existing, then it never existed". But the antecedent can never be true if the consequent is true. An object can not exist and then fade from existence if it never existed.

Cuthbert

↪hypericin

Also, suppose distance had a length. Then if distance got shorter or longer, the whole universe would get bigger or smaller together and no impact. Therefore distance has no length.

These arguments do not tell us anything about space and time but they do tell us something about measurement. You can only measure something against something else. You can't check the story in a newspaper by buying another copy of it.

hypericin

↪Cuthbert

If you are going to argue by analogy, the analogy has to at least make sense. Time seems to move from past to future. Distance having a length does not compute.

An object which is entirely forgotten, ceases to exist, both in the past, present and future.

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions