Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/23/09 10:27 PM, DiaLady wrote:

At 7/23/09 09:52 PM, Col-Sandchez wrote: We exist because we can experience the passing of Time.

But is not time an artificial creation of humanity?

Time was before man, although the passing of Time is experienced by man.

At 7/23/09 11:58 PM, Col-Sandchez wrote:

Time was before man, although the passing of Time is experienced by man.

Time, as a unit of measurement, would hardly live up to the same standards which would be useful to non-human entities. To claim that a "minute" exists is to place an arbitrary label on something purely because we declare it to be of importance.

At 7/23/09 10:27 PM, DiaLady wrote:

At 7/23/09 09:52 PM, Col-Sandchez wrote: We exist because we can experience the passing of Time.

But is not time an artificial creation of humanity?

if time exists and we created it, then wouldn't we have to exist?

Does not the future exist beyond a shadow of a doubt? Even though, technically, it is infinitely intangible?

Presupposing that we acknowledge the "future" must happen at some period in time or other, we must definitively point out, for our own sakes, that this "future" is some distant event set in irreversible motion beyond any free-will to unmistakably "happen".

Thus, we can conclusively argue "existence is intertwined with time, space, free-will, and fate."
So far, we have not truly answered the grand question "Do we exist?"

I say no, we don't exist... life is but a dream.

So row your boat.

At 7/22/09 07:09 AM, kosz wrote: So I'm not sure when I was first asked this question maybe 4 years ago? But it's been stumping me ever since. Do we exist? And if we do is it possible to define what it means to exist? Is existence mental or physical? Permanent or temporary? For every seeming answer I find 20 more questions! I don't think there is a definite answer but I'm interested to hear what the rest of you think!

you're having trouble grasping parts of life, and your mind is denying it in exuberance of life's amazing moments. just soak through part of life, nature, and society for a couple of days, and you'll forget the questions in your mind.

At 7/23/09 10:27 PM, DiaLady wrote:

At 7/23/09 09:52 PM, Col-Sandchez wrote: We exist because we can experience the passing of Time.

But is not time an artificial creation of humanity?

time, as humans define and measure it, is an artificial creation. people's confusion about this leads to t he belief in things like time machines, which are only possible in timelines created by humanity to measure major events and such.

but anyways, sandchez is most likely saying that people exist because they see numerous events in succession

At 7/24/09 03:24 AM, madlawyer wrote: time, as humans define and measure it, is an artificial creation.

Time, as humans define and measure it, is not an artificial creation. The definition of time, and the models designed to quantify time are creations. Time, as humans define and measure it, exists as both concept and natural phenomenon.

Such is the dichotomous state of anything acknowledged as existent.

"artificial creation" is redundant.

people's confusion about this leads to t he belief in things like time machines, which are only possible in timelines created by humanity to measure major events and such.

I'm pretty sure most people don't think time can be manipulated because they think time is man made - particularly when most time travel stories treat time as a natural phenomenon larger than the scope of human intent - that tampering with time is dangerous and futile. It's the moral to almost every single time travel story.

Time travel is an attractive prospect because many of us would like to cover our asses for what's to come and change the mistakes we've made. If something is attractive enough, then people are going to believe it.

At 7/23/09 10:27 PM, DiaLady wrote:

At 7/23/09 09:52 PM, Col-Sandchez wrote: We exist because we can experience the passing of Time.

But is not time an artificial creation of humanity?

No, we just gave it a name. Kinda like the whole universe anyways. Like math and science, we created it but it is none the less true.

At 7/26/09 12:30 AM, SeraphimFalling wrote: No, we just gave it a name. Kinda like the whole universe anyways. Like math and science, we created it but it is none the less true.

Huh? Did you just say math and science are like the universe, which, like time, exist independent of us save for our labeling of it?

And what's this about truth?

At 7/24/09 01:49 AM, DiaLady wrote:

At 7/23/09 11:58 PM, Col-Sandchez wrote:

Time was before man, although the passing of Time is experienced by man.

Time, as a unit of measurement, would hardly live up to the same standards which would be useful to non-human entities. To claim that a "minute" exists is to place an arbitrary label on something purely because we declare it to be of importance.

That would be like saying height didn't exist before we made feet and whatnot.

At 7/26/09 12:42 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 7/26/09 12:30 AM, SeraphimFalling wrote: No, we just gave it a name. Kinda like the whole universe anyways. Like math and science, we created it but it is none the less true.

Huh? Did you just say math and science are like the universe, which, like time, exist independent of us save for our labeling of it?

And what's this about truth?

Everything. We just gave math and science to measure the universe in certain ways. Gravity, physics, all existed before we labeled it.

Here comes a big one...

At 7/26/09 12:45 AM, SeraphimFalling wrote: Everything. We just gave math and science to measure the universe in certain ways. Gravity, physics, all existed before we labeled it.

Ok so I agree with your point, but not the way you treat math and science.

I would say math and science are the creations, not the natural phenomena. Gravity is a natural phenomena. Physics is the creation. Physics didn't exist before us. Gravity did.

At 7/24/09 01:49 AM, DiaLady wrote: Time, as a unit of measurement, would hardly live up to the same standards which would be useful to non-human entities.

Time, as a unit of measurement, is not what col was talking about. Way to shift the context.

To claim that a "minute" exists is to place an arbitrary label on something purely because we declare it to be of importance.

A minute is a unit describing the passage of time. Sure, a "minute" is an arbitrary label. Sure, we make a big deal out of time because we declare it important. Wait... how does this prove that time itself - the natural phenomena - is a creation again?

At 7/24/09 02:32 AM, keioss01 wrote: Does not the future exist beyond a shadow of a doubt? Even though, technically, it is infinitely intangible?

Poetic, but rather shallow. And it only seems like a juxtaposition because you mis-phrased the first question. The future doesn't exist. It will. That's the definition of the future. And obviously... since that is the definition of the future, the future is not a fixed period of time. It's really nothing special. It's semantics.

So once you rephrase it. You're really just saying the same thing twice.

Presupposing that we acknowledge the "future" must happen at some period in time or other, we must definitively point out, for our own sakes, that this "future" is some distant event set in irreversible motion beyond any free-will to unmistakably "happen".

Thus, we can conclusively argue "existence is intertwined with time, space, free-will, and fate."

Fate is generally far more specific than "the future will eventually be now"

Nor is the future necessarily distant. You're being over dramatic.

Nor does our inability to control time suggest we have no free will.

I say no, we don't exist... life is but a dream.

What does that even mean?

At 7/24/09 03:20 AM, madlawyer wrote: you're having trouble grasping parts of life, and your mind is denying it in exuberance of life's amazing moments. just soak through part of life, nature, and society for a couple of days, and you'll forget the questions in your mind.

I somehow doubt the op hasn't gone a couple days in FOUR YEARS without thinking about whether we all exist or not. I somehow doubt it's such the burden you're assuming it is, or that it's caused by some aversive reaction to the glory of life.

After making this post... I think I just can't stand "deep" people. (Seraphim's ok)

At 7/26/09 01:16 AM, Bacchanalian wrote: Here comes a big one...

At 7/26/09 12:45 AM, SeraphimFalling wrote: Everything. We just gave math and science to measure the universe in certain ways. Gravity, physics, all existed before we labeled it.

That's basically what I'm saying. Haha, i know they are our creation but for example 2+2=4 existed before we said so. Ya know?

Well, someone has already quoted Aristotle, so I would advise reading some Hume.

The phrase "I think therefore I am" basically comes from the empirical school of philosophy - all we can know is what our senses tell us. If our senses cannot be trusted (we know well in this day and age they can be manipulated with ease) what can we trust? All we can then truly know is what we experience psychologically. We have thoughts, so we know there is something there.

I spose, along that line, as thoughts are electronic signals in our brains, that is a sign of physical existence too?

At 7/26/09 12:43 AM, SeraphimFalling wrote:

That would be like saying height didn't exist before we made feet and whatnot.

No, height didn't exist before *we* collectively decided it was an important phenomenon to be noticed and codified.

At 7/23/09 02:30 PM, Aughiris wrote:

So you like this feeling of superiority? Because you are 'smart' because you think about stupid shit like whether you really exist or not? You, sir, have a superiority complex.

ahhhh...... Do you know what a superiority complex is?? Look it up man. Its about over compensation for your insecurity about your intelligence. So, it means they think they're stupid, not smart, and certainly not superior. So, one could say your statement is more true of an individual with a superiority complex than whoever you were talking to... because you dont actually know what your talking about, but are pretending you do :)

Also, just correcting my previous post Descartes* not Aristotle...

At 7/26/09 01:22 AM, SeraphimFalling wrote: That's basically what I'm saying. Haha, i know they are our creation but for example 2+2=4 existed before we said so. Ya know?

Ehhh I'm still feeling picky.

2+2=4 is the mathematical statement.

Explicit aggregation is the corresponding natural phenomenon.

At 7/22/09 11:33 AM, LunaNova wrote: who cares if we are not alive or not?, we just need to enjoy the time we have...

2 troo!

Reality is how ourselves and others perceive it. Perhaps simply perceiving it makes us and all else true.

At 7/26/09 04:27 PM, DrunkDemon wrote: Reality is how ourselves and others perceive it. Perhaps simply perceiving it makes us and all else true.

Object permanence people. It's one of the first things newborns learn.

The personal subjectivity of the word real is exploited to create a paradox with this and these sorts of questions. So while no individual can ever be objective enough to discern reality from the unreal, the existing from that which isn't, through our collective agreement of that which is reality and that which isn't we have defined and agreed on the difference between the two.

Humanity cannot truly discern the actuality of anything. The only way we know is by comparing it to something else. We discern points and the relationship between the two. That's what we understand. We do not know who someone is until we have their name, their name connects them to OTHER members of their family, which in turn relates them to society, and ultimately, he who's requested the identifying information in the first place.

We sense acceleration, but have to infer speed. We're truly 3 dimensional beings, if there aren't enough dimensions to something we can't understand it.

You know what is real because you've experienced what isn't and can tell the difference. You know what isn't real because you've experienced what is and see the relationship between the two.

In short: yes, we exist. If you want to pair existence down to the very essence, the very smallest, quantifiable and qualified piece of something to determine if it exists without any reference to any other piece surrounding it, you would have to be purely objective in the process, and therefore non-living. A quark, though it is incapable of 'knowing' in the sense that we are, proves that it exists by taking residence within an atom. Things that don't exist aren't able to effect other things that exist.

IMO, it boils down to this: existence is the smallest unit of reality and thusly our universe there is. The smallest and indivisible piece of our environment is purely a binary question: is? And the answer is yes, else our subjective selves couldn't identify it in the first place.

Not a fan of these sorts of questions. They're answerable, but you've got to get down to some really bizarre levels of semantics to express yourself. The point of them just seems to exploit the fact that one cannot replicate one's thoughts for another's consideration. It's a silly exploitation of the fact that humanity is a communicating organism, instead of a single entity. In fact, everything is.

I've thought about this question many atimes, and the same paradox always comes to mind. Are we living in a world made up of the mind? Could everything I've learned just simply be a very complex, deep, lasting dream? You tell me that I exist because I think, but am I thinking in order to exist, or am I existing in order to think?

We exist. I'm pretty sure that I'm typing a reply right now. Our existence has no point in the cosmic sense, but we do exist. I used to ask myself that same question, although i think it has a pretty obvious answer to it. Existence means you are present. We do exist.

At 7/24/09 01:49 AM, DiaLady wrote:

:To claim that a "minute" exists is to place an arbitrary label on something purely because we declare it to be of importance.

Time always has existed. Time would exist whether we put labels on it or not. Whether or not we declare units in time has no effects on it's existence. I see where you're going though, and i see your point. The idea that i'm getting at is that even if we called time something completely different, had different units, or just didn't define it at all, it would still exist.

*I read the title only*

Well, all of it could actually just be some kind of complex world in which we do not actually control a single sh*t and everything's "modified", but to hell with that idea of mine.

I don't care, I'm just gonna live my life. I suppose most people just wanna live a good life.

At 7/22/09 07:09 AM, kosz wrote: So I'm not sure when I was first asked this question maybe 4 years ago? But it's been stumping me ever since. Do we exist? And if we do is it possible to define what it means to exist? Is existence mental or physical? Permanent or temporary? For every seeming answer I find 20 more questions! I don't think there is a definite answer but I'm interested to hear what the rest of you think!

existing it is to breath to feel it is to live to love and die these are all to exist it is a test of streght.

According to the Matrix, Star Trek's Holodeck, and Buddhism no.

The world and life is an illusion, row row row your boat, gently down the stream, merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

At 7/27/09 03:52 AM, hongkongexpress wrote: According to the Matrix, Star Trek's Holodeck, and Buddhism no.

Umm according to the matrix, we do exist we just cannot trust our senses to tell us so.

At 7/22/09 07:09 AM, kosz wrote: So I'm not sure when I was first asked this question maybe 4 years ago? But it's been stumping me ever since. Do we exist? And if we do is it possible to define what it means to exist? Is existence mental or physical? Permanent or temporary? For every seeming answer I find 20 more questions! I don't think there is a definite answer but I'm interested to hear what the rest of you think!

We probably exist. It's a matter of risk management, loading in with the most likely scenario - and for that matter, reality is undoubtedly the best candidate.
Personally I think existence doesn't come to an end, at least not when by that you mean matter and energy. If we are dead, we are still there, it is still our body, full of life, but it no longer functions as an animal. Death is the unavoidable end to your life. Which I actually find rather motivating.

For all we know, we and everything else around us is just an illusion and no one shall ever know the true essence of the universe, but yeah, I prefer to think that I do exist simply because it makes me feel better.