Your answer to existence.

The question of the purpose of existence is impossible to answer.

Let "Y" = Purpose of "X."
The existential reach of "Y" must somehow encompass or surpass X for this this statement to have any meaning. But if X = "existence itself" then it is impossible for any "Y" to exist outside or above it. The question would immediately become "So what is the purpose of Y?" And so on, ad infinitum (or rather, ad nauseum).

There, problem solved. What's for dessert?

Now, I'm going to log off and tell my family members how much I love them and how much they give my life meaning and purpose.

Originally posted by silent thunder
The question of the purpose of existence is impossible to answer.

No it is not. You actually answer it with an explanation of it being impossible to answer.

Let "Y" = Purpose of "X."

True.

The existential reach of "Y" must somehow encompass or surpass X for this statement to have any meaning. But if X = "existence itself" then it is impossible for any "Y" to exist outside or above it.

But we are talking about equating Y with X not Y existing outside of or above of X. So Y needs only equal the purpose of X. If X is determinable then Y can equate it by merely reaching X. Of course, if X is infinite, it could be a long look for Y.

The question would immediately become "So what is the purpose of Y?" And so on, ad infinitum (or rather, ad nauseum).

You clearly state the purpose of Y, let Y = the Purpose of X. Adding "what is the purpose of Y" can be answered by simply reversing the equation because Y=the purpose of X, and the purpose of X=Y. So Y is the purpose of X. What is the purpose of Y. Y is the purpose of X.
You could inject U=the purpose of Y, but that would make U=X. Because the purpose of X= Y.

And this is your explanation or interpretation or feelings towards the topic. It is a valuable addition to the quotes and varying thoughts that I have posted in the OP, not to explain existence but to show how differently we all do it.
Thank you for your equation.

There, problem solved. What's for dessert?

Yum, dessert! Now there is something I can exist for.

Now, I'm going to log off and tell my family members how much I love them and how much they give my life meaning and purpose.

So Y(the expression of love) is equal to X(the purpose of existence).
Pay attention, this is where it is at.

reply to post by atlasastro


Pretty neat, man.

Dessert's on me.

(Yes, I actually logged off and did what I said I was going to do and then logged back on.)

No human can answer existence, Not you or me or anyone else.

It's the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ question

reply to post by Kingdom of darkness


I can answer it or at least try.
The question is, when I do try am I right or will you believe me?
Many people answer the question.
Many people say they have the answer from someone else, they may believe a religion or a philosophy.

So I will politely disagree with you.

Why is it that people believe that this question cannot be answered.

Maybe human beings have always over-thought how things must be in the big picture?

We probably used what we knew about how we are, as a basis for how Gods or a God must be, and how a hierarchy must run it all because that is how it runs for us.

We create theories on how everything must be, and we did it looking from the inside out, to the bigger picture. Then when we thought we had it pinned down we Believed it and taught our kids to also.

I have always thought and felt within that things are much more simple in the big picture.

What many people call God, I see as our bubble-shaped Universe of Aware Energy. It diversifies itself into smaller portions, each portion still being Aware Energy. This diversifying continued on and brought things into different "realities", in different densities and all for a reason.

That reason for me, is so It can know Itself through the Experiences it creates using all those Aware Energy portions. It is vast and yet still only young and more than likely still learning about itself.

We also learn about ourselves as we grow through experience.

For perspective, let's say a human being is about the size of a sub-atomic particle, yes really small stuff. Now place that particle into an atom, and put that into a nucleolus. Put that inside a nucleus, than put it inside a cell, make that a skin cell. And place that skin cell in your left arm.

The scale is immense from what "we" are to what It is. We can call it One, or God but my personal favourite name for it is Fred.

Either way, we are small portions of that Aware Energy. The next larger part of "us" is what people call Soul.. as a "level" of Awareness. Next we could call Over Soul, another layer of Awareness larger than the last bigger picture. And the bigger pictures keep on getting bigger until you arrive again at the whole of It/God/Fred/Universe. Just like those videos of flying out from earth to the farthest reaches of the Universe where you can see it almost as a Whole... One thing.

Ok, so now we ask why does It need us? Well, if we take the human emotional aspect of that away, we can see that if we are it and it is us then there is no NEED involved. Therefore it would not care about what "You do" just as you don't care what that sub-atomic particle deep inside your arm skin cell is doing.

Since It is experiencing Itself, we then must be a part of that too. So, through us It is Experiencing Itself. Life therefore would be "about" Experience, of everything It is making with Itself. In which case the concept of Life being a School would be a fallacy, and one that has been part of the Believing we've done since we first thougth about what we are and why.

Another thing to become a fallacy would be Duality. Being a concept in play within the One/Fred, it would be limited to areas offering the Experience. Which also means that the "supporting stages" for that "reality" would display it. For me this explains what we Believe about Evil and Good from our limited human capacity to observe a bigger picture. The concept is to be found in all the "levels" above the 3rd dimension up to where the Awareness level of Soul begins.. this is my personal experience of it anyway.

Getting late here, must sleep. Nite

reply to post by Tayesin


Cool post.

I found the point you mention relating to duality interesting.
I think it is a common theme in how we explain things. I also think it presents a false dichotomy in relation to certain aspects of existence and experience.
I think there are examples of certain elements of experience relating to existence that are described in a dualistic nature but would be more accurately described in terms of just one element existing and an absence of those elements rather than describing them as a duality.

Here is an awesome lecture from TED. Our existence explained in a sense.
Brian Greene on String Theory.

Existance is cyclidic in nature it never ends yet it never begins it is in essence paradoxial, oxymoronic, temporal, probable, and actual in all those needs.

The Smoluchowski Equation. The Principle of Detailed Balancing.

Let us introduce the representative points in a six-dimensional u-space, moving along their phase trajectors. Let us introduce the representative point density, or the distribution function f (r,p,t), that in the general case of a non-equilibrim system depends both on coordinates and momenta, r and p, and on the time t. The space density of particles n=n(r,t) is related with the distribution function f by the expression n(r$f(r,p,t)d3p.

The particle density in the momentum space n(p,t) is analogously expressed by n(p,t)=$f(r,p,t)d3r

The distribution function f (r,p,t) is normalized by the condition

$$f(r,p,t) d3r d3p = N

where N is the total number of gas* particles

*Physical Kinetics reacurring, never ending, reinfusing, permanite, distributions.

The need to have the ability to form kinetic coefficients in the brain basicly the ability for natural formation of statistical physics in the mind - known as Quintaxial Completion - Multi Vector, Thermohyper(Thermoelectric, Thermomagnetic, Thermodynamic), Plasmid Orientation. Would need a base IQ of 2700 and need at least one hundred watt power output from the brain, 6x 75 ohm reformers(triological cpu) not one single 15 ohm reformation complex(biological apu).

Existance in this universe is called multivecoric. before this universe it was called spin lattice right angle formation. before that is was left angle simplification partialities. After this universe call it dynamic hyperkinetics. after that call it unificationary completionaries in pulsation plasmid receptors. existance itself is equated (E1=E1)(E!=E!) basicly it goes in all directions foreever and gets either more complex or simplistic.

reply to post by Sonata


Thanks for adding your thoughts.

Originally posted by Sonata
Existance is cyclidic in nature it never ends yet it never begins it is in essence paradoxial, oxymoronic, temporal, probable, and actual in all those needs.

Yes it could be, it could be argued that we just view it as paradoxical. It is obviously temporal, all events are reliant on time. It is more than just probable because it is. There is no probability that the universe exists, it exists. We would have to observe the event of the universe over and over in the cycle to predict what is actually probable about its existence, at least from my perspective anyway.

The Smoluchowski Equation. The Principle of Detailed Balancing.

I guess if you look at the universe as gas in a box. Doesn't macroscopic change increase entropy?


I guess one way to look at the principle of detailed balancing on a larger scale would be to apply the reversal of micro mechanics and the time reversal of events showing exact events regardless of what side of the event you are on. This would apply to the big bang. Time reversal of the isotropic expansion would result in a singularity then an exact expansion to our side of the event horizon of that singularity t or -t. But we would need to see a natural reversal of the current expansion, would we not, in order to have and event -t?

Let us introduce the representative points in a six-dimensional u-space,

I guess you would need to introduce 2 more dimensions as currently we only have 3 dimensions and a dimension of time. Or are you going off models of Minkowski space time in 6D? How did you deal with the physical restriction that apply regarding discrete transformations in QFT in curved space time?

moving along their phase trajectors. Let us introduce the representative point density, or the distribution function f (r,p,t), that in the general case of a non-equilibrim system depends both on coordinates and momenta, r and p, and on the time t. The space density of particles n=n(r,t) is related with the distribution function f by the expression n(r$f(r,p,t)d3p.

The particle density in the momentum space n(p,t) is analogously expressed by n(p,t)=$f(r,p,t)d3r

The distribution function f (r,p,t) is normalized by the condition

$$f(r,p,t) d3r d3p = N

What is $ equal? Did you just make this up? What about the degeneracy of energy in U-space related to states and density?
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/de89353ee6ba.gif[/atsimg]
Where K =Uspace?

where N is the total number of gas* particles

*Physical Kinetics reacurring, never ending, reinfusing, permanite, distributions.

Sure, If it is in an isolated system. In a box, in a liquid. We are not. We don't know enough to suggest that. The fact that the universe is expanding means the box is getting bigger, the 2nd law of thermodynamics and in fact the first law argue against this-

*Physical Kinetics reacurring, never ending, reinfusing, permanite, distributions.

I guess that is why you need to site the Principle of Detailed balancing in order to dispute the impossibility of a reversal of entropy in any system.
The system could never be infinite, the system is reliant on its surroundings, is it not? When the surroundings change, so does the total regardless of the system?
ΔStotal = ΔSsystem + ΔSsurroundings

The distribution function f (r,p,t) is normalized by the condition

As the system condition is changing by a change in the surrounds, the conditions are changed and so distribution will change. So the extent of your process is limited by the dilution of energy that cannot be reversed, so it is finite and irreversible in an expanding condition that surrounds and effects the system. At least that is how my limited understanding perceives this.

The need to have the ability to form kinetic coefficients in the brain basicly the ability for natural formation of statistical physics in the mind - known as Quintaxial Completion - Multi Vector, Thermohyper(Thermoelectric, Thermomagnetic, Thermodynamic), Plasmid Orientation. Would need a base IQ of 2700 and need at least one hundred watt power output from the brain, 6x 75 ohm reformers(triological cpu) not one single 15 ohm reformation complex(biological apu).

That sounds pretty cool. But you'll need to lay that down in simple terms for me please.
What is it that we need to have an ability to form kinetic coefficients in the brain and what does that have to do with effecting plasmid gene orientation?
Quite frankly, you have made this all up.
It sounds great, and I think what you are getting it is our ability to unify the field theory by needing to genetically form the ability to be able to have the brain capacity to comprehend the physics involved regarding the unified field theory. Am I close?

It really sounds cool, but your jargon and linguistic juggling act is hard to comprehend and means very little to me. It could be just be me though.

Existance in this universe is called multivecoric.

Is that what you call it? I am unfamiliar with that term.

before this universe it was called spin lattice right angle formation.

I guess it must have been magnetized fractionally in a stable state.

before that is was left angle simplification partialities. After this universe call it dynamic hyperkinetics. after that call it unificationary completionaries in pulsation plasmid receptors. existance itself is equated (E1=E1)(E!=E!) basicly it goes in all directions foreever and gets either more complex or simplistic.

That is interesting, but I am rather confused(which is not unusual) because you just stated before the system for our universe was permanent, so there is no other universes unless we have beginnings and end to this universe. But you also state that before this universe was the spin lattice, and after this universe will be the dynamic hyperkenetic.
I call it hyperbole.
I guess I could see it as fractal in nature with a spectrum or scale in complexity.

"Existance is cyclidic in nature it never ends yet it never begins"

"*Physical Kinetics reacurring, never ending, reinfusing, permanite, distributions."

Thank you for the reply, it was very interesting.




[edit on 7/3/10 by atlasastro]

I think to exist is to love. And be the best that you can be.

reply to post by Psychadelic_Mind


I think that is pretty close to most peoples equations or philosophies regarding existence.


Thank you for the reply.

reply to post by atlasastro
With regard to awareness and creation...

Individual coral polyps are probably not self-aware, I think most would agree.

They as a community create some marvelous structures.

Maybe something is aware in that group of polyps?

reply to post by butcherguy


Maybe?
Who knows.
Collective consciousness perhaps?
Very interesting.
I guess we can limit what we define as awareness and how we then perceive existence sometimes, can't we.
Like the example you provide, we could relegate it to just being a polyp. But it would be aware of sorts as it would be constantly interacting with the surrounds and events of its existence, just like us.
Emersed in it existence.
Maybe coral polyps as an existence is an expression of creative awareness by a consciousness but we see only the polyp and its community and so only see it as the coral polyp that is creating a coral seascape in communion with other polyp which leads us to ponder if it is awareness that leads it to such behavior.
But it could it be an expression of an external awareness.
Which could also be applied to us then too.
Are we aware or just the expression or creation of an awareness. Can we be both?

Interesting stuff my friend.
Thanks for the post and the thought provoking reply.

I feel like snorkeling now.

My philosophy? I am, once I was not, I will not be again. Hows that?

OK, A little more.

We are, for the sake of life itself, for without life, there is nothing.

[edit on 8-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]

Raw existence is an event - an instance of activity or effect - and the information concerning the fact of that event. The information is eternal, once brought into existence as a result of the event, and represents that event as having once existed. The symbiosis between these two elemental staples is what we call reality.

Rinse, repeat.

It just seemes to bother some on the A.T.S. that potentially there is more then just this little universe we all reside in as FLESH and beyond doesnt fit within this darkrealm. Some attitudes in this thread respond like there is it some ruller SMMFH somewhere that is upset that the univers it thought rules over is completely encapsulated within the creators HOLD. If you cannot sense or feel or except that LIFE AND DEATH EXIST within EXISTANCE (have FAITH) then reguardless of how powerfull 1 must think 1 is, it is not. The ceator doesnt live within THIS UNIVERSE AS HE SAID HE CREATED THE HEAVENS (PLURAL above for some lmao space) AND THE EARTH (SINGULAR below for some SMH) FROM ANOTHER LOCATION LOL LOL WHERE @.

[edit on 3/8/10 by Ophiuchus 13]

reply to post by NorEaster

I like that dude.

reply to post by wayaboveitall



Its one awesome sake though, right?

Originally posted by Ophiuchus 13
It just seemes to bother some on the A.T.S. that potentially there is more then just this little universe we all reside in as FLESH and beyond doesnt fit within this darkrealm.

It seems to bother you my friend that some people are bothered by some other thing.

Some attitudes in this thread respond like there is it some ruller SMMFH somewhere that is upset that the univers it thought rules over is completely encapsulated within the creators HOLD.

So what?

If you cannot sense or feel or except that LIFE AND DEATH EXIST within EXISTANCE (have FAITH) then reguardless of how powerfull 1 must think 1 is, it is not.

Explain to me exactly how death exists.
Explain death to me as existence. IMHO, I think you feel existence is a duality. That there is existence of life and existence of death.
But in reality, death is the absence of life. There is no death, just a lack of the existence of life. Just like there is no such thing as darkness, just the absence of the existence of light. We describe the absence of the existence of life as death. Death does not exist, it is the description of the absence of existence as we know it.

The ceator doesnt live within THIS UNIVERSE AS HE SAID HE CREATED THE HEAVENS (PLURAL above for some lmao space) AND THE EARTH (SINGULAR below for some SMH) FROM ANOTHER LOCATION LOL LOL WHERE @.

[edit on 3/8/10 by Ophiuchus 13]

Perhaps you are right.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

Wow, OP , you've done such a good research!

Well, existance has a lot of values. Even if I'm agnostic I find existence can't be defined differently than what it is...A travel...

Life is really like sitting into a train and experience the ethernal unknown...

I love seeking the unknown, the unknown is like a magnet for me.