• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Can something exist and not exist at the same time ?

PearlSeeker

Well-Known Member
If you can state the conclusion, you can show the premises that led to it.

Every thing that comes into actual existence comes from the potential to be. If there is no potential for the thing then it can't exist.

So: If potentials wouldn't exist (if no potential exists) then actual realm also wouldn't exist because no thing would be possible to exist.
 

Madsaac

Active Member
Do you mean that bugs can't understand cars?

Cars are real enough to bugs when they collide with each other.

But the bugs are still unaware of the car, so to bugs, cars do not exist?

They haven't evolved in a way that they need to know that cars exist.
 

Madsaac

Active Member
That does not mean that we can simply arbitrarily decide to ignore evidence and decide whether something exists out of convenience; it means instead that reality can be complex and challenging to understand and describe.

Yes you're right, it has taken millions of years of evolution for us to see if something exists.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
But the bugs are still unaware of the car, so to bugs, cars do not exist?

They haven't evolved in a way that they need to know that cars exist.
Haven't they? Awareness of cars might help in their survival, don't you think?

Above and beyond that, existence does not require external validation.
 

Betho_br

Active Member
To discuss the perception of entities in higher dimensions, I think it's helpful to start with some fundamental concepts:

Point Particle: When I think about a point particle, I consider it a theoretical concept in physics where an object is thought to have mass but no spatial dimensions. For me, this means the particle exists at a single point, with no extension in space.

Two-Dimensional Beings: In Edwin A. Abbott's Flatland, I see that two-dimensional beings exist only on a flat surface. These beings can move along this plane but have no concept of a third dimension. For them, moving up or down doesn’t make sense, which I find intriguing.

Three-Dimensional Beings: I, along with everyone around me, am a three-dimensional being. We interact with objects that have length, width, and height. To me, this means we can move in all spatial directions, and our perception is based on a three-dimensional experience.

Four-Dimensional Beings: When I think about four-dimensional beings, I imagine a concept where there’s an additional spatial dimension beyond the three we know. In physics, I understand that the universe is sometimes described as a four-dimensional spacetime continuum, where time acts as the fourth dimension. If I could interact with a four-dimensional being, it might access the inside of a sealed bottle without needing to open it, which I find fascinating.

The big question for me is whether humans could ever perceive or interact with entities from higher dimensions. Right now, I feel that our understanding of dimensions beyond the third is quite limited, and our sensory capabilities are confined to three-dimensional space. The idea that there might be individuals who can sense or interact with higher-dimensional entities is speculative, but it's a topic I find intriguing and one that continues to spark my interest, even if it's still far from concrete evidence.
 

Madsaac

Active Member
The big question for me is whether humans could ever perceive or interact with entities from higher dimensions. Right now, I feel that our understanding of dimensions beyond the third is quite limited, and our sensory capabilities are confined to three-dimensional space. The idea that there might be individuals who can sense or interact with higher-dimensional entities is speculative, but it's a topic I find intriguing and one that continues to spark my interest, even if it's still far from concrete evidence.

Could it be like dogs not knowing the Eiffel Tower exists because of their intelligence/awareness and consciousness is not 'good' enough?

So we are like dogs that are unaware of some higher dimension because our intelligence/awareness and consciousness is not 'good' enough?

To become aware of that next dimension, we may need more time to evolve or something to help us?
 

Betho_br

Active Member
Could it be like dogs not knowing the Eiffel Tower exists because of their intelligence/awareness and consciousness is not 'good' enough?

So we are like dogs that are unaware of some higher dimension because our intelligence/awareness and consciousness is not 'good' enough?

To become aware of that next dimension, we may need more time to evolve or something to help us?


You gave a plausible example, yes, I believe we still have evolutionary limitations.
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
Statistical math and science deal in this dichotomy of potential and actual. Nothing has the odds 0 or 1, fully potential or fully actual, but rather it assumes both exists; >0 and <1. This is not a good way to do rational science since half formed things, like fuzzy dice, leave too much room for the imagination and poor graphing. It makes con jobs easier by allowing more angles.

If you were doing a statistical experiment, you place the phenomena in the figurative black box; Schrödinger's cat. We leave the box closed; start with no theory. We input things and measure the output. The problem is since the cat is both alive and dead, how do we know whichcat is involved in the output or not? A rational theory already knows since it will open the box and can see the cat, and therefore can make predictions, since it knows what to expect. The black box is not so certain. We have margins of error and levels of certainty and do not know either way. We draw the best curve through the data and then try to formulate a theory, with the box still closed. This gives us hope since our theory is both dead and alive so it cannot be dismissed either way.

One data point out of place with a rational theory will need revision. Half the data out of place in a statistical theory gets to linger. Not all science is created equal.

Take the theory of Evolution, which based on black box science. It cannot be used to make accurate future predictions. We can catalog the past and see pattern of change, but the mechanism that could allow us to make future predictions is still inside the black box, stuck somewhere between potential and actual. This is where the debate between reason and Schrödinger's cat come in. Many see the potential realized, based on how many people it employs. Why would we I invest so much into it, if it was not useful? While those who do not see the future predictive value, sense it is short of actual; not the final rational version but not still a black box stepping stone.

This is why marketing, sales, polling, politics, focus groups, and even gaming and gambling all use this same math. Nothing is 100% guaranteed and anything can be inflated. This may not be in the best interest of science even if it creates assembly line jobs. Politics and science need to be separate which is hard to do with they share the same math and politics can use that to game the system; Schrödinger's cat.

The DNC is keeping Harris in a black box; Schrödinger's cat, with level and certainty and margin of error. Reason is suspended and it comes down to feeling, one way or the other. Fake new will then put its finger on the scales. This can also occurs in black box science.

As a side note connected to the discussion of potential energy;

Free energy is defined by the equation G=H-TS, where G is total free energy, H is enthalpy or internal energy like the energy in gasoline, or deuterium, T is temperature in degree K, S is entropy which is a measure of complexity.

The second law states that the entropy of the universe has to increase, which implies as S gets larger, the -TS term causes the universal free energy to lower. While energy conservation says this energy has to be conserved. However, since universal entropy has to increase over time, is that energy, lost to entropy, negative potential energy?

We can get that entropic energy back, in part, but it always cost more energy to do that, than we will get back. There is no such thing as perpetual motion. We cannot use a machine to get a wash like most versions of conserved energy. The machines needed to reverse entropy always lose more energy they get back; no perpetual motion. Entropy is an odd duck when it comes to potential energy, being more like a source of negative potential energy. It is not meant to be reversed, spontaneously, since it has to increase over time.

What is interesting is life and consciousness are both deigned to reverse entropy, sort of damming up the second law. When S gets lower, that makes the -TS term see a double negative, therefore this adds free energy to the organic matrix, that is then subject to an entropy increase. Life sort of sort of uses the principle of no perpetual motion, which loses more energy than it get back. Life makes things less complex, which causes the 2nd law to become even more complex, since there is no perpetual motion; evolution. Negative potential energy is part of life and forward change and catalysis.
 
Top