/sci/ - Science & Math

to summarize; Existence is an entity that Observes every possible state of its self, of which there can be infinite amount.

this is a video that first helped me kinda visualize this. And it is that, just a thought experiment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqeqW3g8N2Q

>>8697649
>>8697655
I've read your theory.

Now give me some predictions. What can your theory predict? What are the consequences of those predictions to human happiness and suffering?

>>8697667
here are some more implications;
the "I am" identity of ours. is not only similar, but the one that we share. Our sentience is not just our own. What is our individuality is our Ego. Ego is what we chose to glue to that "I am" sense.
This all implies that existence is one being, self-contained one.

>>8697667
What we call Consciousness is as underlying to entire existence as the notion of Space is underlying to this universe.

>>8697667
One can also theorize that if our ego is bound by this sense of time (birth/death), our sense of sole Existence ("I am") transcends it.
It is to say we can not stop "being"

>>8697679
>>8697682
>>8697687
I don't follow you. How do you design an experiment to validify your theory? How do you gain economic benefit from your theory?

>>8697649


correct.

>>8697689
I'll help you a bit.

Consciousness is studied BECAUSE
>so we can design intelligent robots that do services and work for us --> money
>we can understand mental illnesses better and cure them --> money
>we can manipulate the consciousness of lesser organisms so they would do services/work for us --> money

All else is just fiction/romantics/aesthetics.

>>8697689
Experimenting in the realm of pure information is next to impossible. But it can be proven with reverse implication. If we were can derive laws of physics from the interactions (there is already talk about Consciousness being quantum-like) of "Consciousness Agents" than it can work as proof of Theory.

>>8697689
Lol, the fuck would i care about Economic benefit? The agenda is understanding. applications are sub important.

What is also interesting is that with this in mind.
The most sought out questions have most simple
(maybe too simple for our satisfaction) answers.
"why do i exist" answer; "because u do"
: )

>>8697689
>economic benefit

Die, brainlet.

>>8697720
I'm actually not surprised not even the slightest.
That was the first reaction from a long time friend of mine. He went full "but that does not mean anything for our earth experience, we still have to; get up every morning, eat, fuck die".
My jaw just dropped then.

>>8697649
>if we were to think about Existence as a whole, as Everything that ever did, is and will be (every possible information or set of informations),
>then its source (seed) is clear;
>We start from a notion of non-existence, something that does not exist:
Total non sequitur
>So that which does not exist can not have any description.
Can be described as non-existence, subjectivity, or abstractionism.
>That means that non-existence is an empty field, it nullifies its self in its inception. Conclusion; a non-existence does not Exist.
Tautology
>That leaves us with an Infinite vast "Everything".
Non sequitur
> Can existence "be" without "knowing" its self, without knowing that it exists.
Depends on your preferred interpretation of QM, any way there is still existence without observation, existences state is simply probable and undefined in this case.

>>8697773
>ill be first to admit that i would love to have more elegant way of putting this together

That being said;
What I've tried to clarify Is that we are speaking about Existence as and absolute notion.
In that sense, you can not speak of non-Existence. Because a non-existence of an information can only be in relative interaction, aka "the information x does not exist in set A, it is outside of it, or is part of some set B".

But if u are talking about the set that contains within its self every possible information and every possible sets of informations. Then the notion of non-existence is paradoxical in relation to that set.

>Tautology
well yes, tautological structures are the structure of existence its self. they are described relationships between informations or sets of informations in existence. Don't see the problem there.

>Depends on your preferred interpretation of QM, any way there is still existence without observation, existences state is simply probable and undefined in this case.

Well looking at it logically (without bringing QM into it) it most certainly can be deduced. A description (state) of information is only "described" (related) by a conscious agent, its "possible" independence from observer is paradoxical because same act of "relating" is relationship its self. There is no logical distinction.

>>8697822
In order for you to logically demonstrate only existence exists, you need to have a null hypothesis eg. non-existence exists. Does there exist a particle of light as heavy as a particle of iron? Absolutely not, this concept is non existent both objectively and subjectively. To imagine a photon having the properties of an iron atom is to not imagine a photon. There are hypothetical permutations of elements of reality that don't exist, eg. the nukes emperor Nero had.
Just because a concept seems paradoxical doesn't make it untrue. In fact, paradoxicality is not necessarily falsehood. It may seem impossible that things can exist without observation from a perspective bound by subjectivity, but things can exist without observation. Imagine a fallen tree in the woods of an island never populated or visited by fauna. The standing tree had existed as evident by the fallen tree independent of observation. We can observe supernovae millions of light years away, evidence of the existence of a star that was never observed.

>>8697959
This is a good point.
But think in terms of "potential informations", as opposed to manifested ones. U can not argue that something u made up in ur mind "does not exist" u can only argue that it's not part of this manifested reality we are experiencing.

It is not necessary for a Human Perception (individual) to be aware of some distant process. For that process to be observed.
The universe could easily have a field of Consciousness underlying the matter inside of it (exactly what I'm arguing for), like the
space-time is also in an of its self a pure abstraction (like any notion of "field" is as a matter of fact) but also is detrimental to
a function of this universe.

Btw; don't regret posting this here. This is actually first time I'm writing this shit down. Been in me head for far too long.

>>8697996
How are you defining existence?

>>8698106
Everything that is (independent of space-time)

>As a self-observing infinity.
That would probably be most compressed definition.

>>8698126
So if something exists it is everything that is?

>>8698183
Point is; Everything exists. There is no such thing as non-existence when you look at the Existence as a whole. As an ultimate set.
Everything is contained inside of Existence, because it has nothing else to be contained in.

It's and abstraction, one I believe is actually representative of reality.

>>8698210
Do emperor Neros nukes exist?