I believe there are some very interesting philosophical ramifications if we're to say that non-existence cannot exist. Namely it suggests there is singularly one existence and that this has no relation with non-existence. It is, in essence, incomparable. This gives us the conclusion that the fundamental nature of existence is the same. This can bring a new perspective as to a casual event and brings in question the very notion of definability. In maths we only value things as we perceive them. Bergson suggested the notion of time as a measure of objective reality as flawed, ‘a succession of perceptions is not a perception of successionwe experience time as duration' (Bergson). Modern physics can demonstrate how existence on a sub atomic level a haze only made definable by the observer. On this level things only appear exhibit a behaviour by the very fact they are being observed. If the fundamental nature is the same then existence isn't changed but ‘moulded.’ We know we exist but only directly in our awareness of existence, but I cannot be non-existent so I must exist in some form. We are wrong to think the values which we attribute are correct, but is it undeniable that there are neverless a perspective of correctness? Are we able to say that although the fundamental nature of existence eludes us, it is nevertheless, one single thing?
[This message has been edited by loot, 01-30-2004]
[This message has been edited by loot, 02-04-2004]
™ Version 4.2