posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 11:04 PM
I have proven that I exist, and I will prove I exist, or I have proven that I exist already, in the future. Or you already have proof that I exist,
and you want me to prove to you that you exist by answering your question, which has been answered previously in the future.
The nature of scientific proof is that the lack of proof, proves nothing.
I do not 'exist' per se, I interact with the medium that is accepted as reality consisting of three spacial dimensions and 1 temporal dimension. For
me to exist is to ascertain that I only interact with these dimensions in the manner that they are interpreted by the masses, and these definitions of
'real' are wholly dependent on the masses as is the nature of written and spoken language.
As for my existence in relation to you, that depends on the general definition of existence being that it is 'real'. To expand upon the principle of
being 'real' we will also add that to exist is to have knowledge of ones own being. As complex beings we cannot fully depend on 'real' being a
strict interpretation of whether we exist or not, because numbers exist in real and imaginary forms.
I guess to take a motif from the Bible, I will define myself as God did. He said "I am", meaning, words cannot grasp the whole concept of my being,
thus are incapable of defining it without compromising its integrity. This answer is the closest any spoken or written language can come to define
some body that is in this world but not as a product of this world.
DINSTAAR------ "I am" and to others "I seem to be"
I am surprised this thread hasn't been mod-hammered yet.