Introduction
In this paper, the topics of what is traditionally called non-existence and whether or not it actually exists will be discussed. In the first section, a definition of non-existence is given. In the following sections, evidence that non-existence actually exists, and exists independent of the mind, is given.What do Existence and Non-Existence Mean?
What is a definition for existence? In a preceeding paper (1), "existence" was defined as a whole and "exists" as the property of being whole. The rationale for this was that a whole, by virtue of its wholeness or completeness, has an edge or boundary (wholes without edges or boundaries, indicating their completeness, wouldn't be wholes) and because it has an edge or boundary, a whole becomes something that has substance; that is, it is a "thing"; it "is"; it "exists". The edge is the key to making any whole real and capable of being called "existent" or "is". This edge is not a specific structure but is, rather, just the wholeness, entiretyness or completeness of the whole itself. An edge also allows a whole to be observed and, thus, described as occupying spatial volume. The size (ie, non-zero or zero) of this volume is not restricted by this definition. A whole, or volume, can only be perceived as existing from a reference frame (ie, observation point) that can see the wholeness (ie, the edge) of the volume. Next, what is a definition for non-existence (NE)? To get at this, it is first assumed that everything that could possibly be thought of as existing (including physical objects, energy, space-time, vacuum, the mind, mathematics, ideas, concepts, etc.) takes up non-zero spatial volume as seen from our reference frame (ie, observation point). Then, what is traditionally called non-existence must be zero volume as seen from a given reference frame. Note that in zero volume, even the reference frame from which one was trying to visualize NE (ie, the mind) must be gone. This means that NE is more accurately defined as zero volume as seen from that reference frame which was trying to visualize NE, but which is also now gone. But, for ease of wording, NE will be referred to as zero volume as seen from a given reference frame. Can one directly visualize NE? The answer is no for the following reasons. First, remember that it was assumed, above, that all things that exist in both the mind (mind's eye, ideas, concepts, etc.) and anything external to the mind (ie, the "real world") were defined as occupying non-zero volume. Therefore, in NE, neither the mind nor anything external to the mind is present. This is very important. Not until all things and all volume, including the mind, are gone is there true NE. With NE, there is no volume, and no mind to think about this zero volume. What this means is that, because our perceptions are trapped within our minds (of non-zero volume), which cannot be present in the case of true NE, humans can never directly visualize NE.Does What is Traditionally Called Non-Existence Exist?
It is assumed here that the words whole, entire, complete and totality are identical in meaning. Various definitions of these words from Webster's Dictionary (2) include: "complete implies inclusion of all that is needed...", "not lacking any of the parts...", "whole and entire imply unbroken unity, stressing that not a single part, individual, instance, etc. has been omitted...". Given these definitions, is zero volume as seen from a given reference frame, where all that exists including the mind frame is not present, a whole? Consider: o Does zero volume include all? Yes. o With zero volume, is any volume, thing or part lacking, missing or omitted? No. o With zero volume, is there any thing anywhere else? No. By definition, then, true zero volume, or what is traditionally called non-existence, is indeed a whole. And, by virtue of its wholeness, it must have an edge and, therefore, must exist. The wholeness of zero volume is really that it it is the whole amount of all volume; no thing is missing; it is the "all". The existence of zero volume can only be perceived from a reference frame (ie, observation point) that can see the wholeness, or the edge, of the zero volume. An observer in a reference frame that cannot see this wholeness would continue to say that zero volume does not exist and is, indeed, accurately labeled as non-existence. In other words, the same zero volume can be said to both not exist and to exist depending on the reference frame (ie, observation point) that it is viewed from. While logical, the reasoning that non-existence actually exists is, admittedly, hard to accept, mainly, I think, for the following reason. When one tries to visualize zero volume, the non-zero volume of the mind is still there, and this prevents one from seeing the zero volume as a whole or an entirety, and, therefore, as existing. Only once the mind is not present, does zero volume become the entirety and come into existence.Does Non-Existence Exist Independent of the Mind?
One might argue that it is not zero volume itself that is an existent whole independent of the mind but, rather, that it is the mind which, in trying to visualize it, turns this zero volume into an existent whole. Because in true zero volume, the mind is not present, it is impossible to prove this point one way or the other. However, it is argued here that zero volume can exist on its own, and evidence will be provided in the form of arguments and counterarguments. o Argument 1: The first argument against the idea that zero volume is an existent whole independent of the mind is that in trying to visualize it, it seems as if zero volume, or NE, just isn't "there", so, therefore, how can it exist? In other words, it seems to the mind as if only non-zero volumes can exist. o Counterarguments to Argument 1: - The conclusion that zero volume just isn't "there" and, thus, cannot exist, is made from the perspective of a mind, which still is "there", despite any attempts at trying to visualize the mind as not being there. However, in true zero volume, the mind is not "there". This means that any argument about the existence of zero volume which comes from a mind which contains non-zero volume is suspect. While the mind is still present, the zero volume, or NE, imagined within it does not "include all". That is, there is non-zero volume (ie, that of the mind itself) in addition to the zero volume one is attempting to visualize, and this means that this zero volume being visualized is not the whole or entire amount of all volume. Only once the mind is not present does zero volume truly become the entirety and, thus, become existent. - Since it is commonly assumed that non-zero volumes exist, the argument that only non-zero volumes can exist boils down to saying that only things that exist can exist. This is a circular argument that is not based on an underlying reason for why volumes, either non-zero or zero, exist at all. The arguments presented in this paper, however, are at least based on a definition for why things exist (1). Based on this argument that things exist because they are wholes and, therefore, have edges that give them substance and existence, it seems clear that both non-zero and zero volumes are wholes and must exist. - A final counterargument that zero volume exists comes from the idea of the null set, which is really just zero volume (ie, the null contents of the set) and an edge (ie, the curly braces, {}, of the set). Set theory, the basis of all mathematics, considers the null set to exist (3). If set theory is to be accepted and is to have any relevance to the physical world, then the zero volume of non-existence, which is equivalent to the null set (ie, it's zero volume with an edge), should also exist. Both the null set and zero volume exist because they are whole groupings (a set is a whole grouping) and, therefore, due to their wholeness, have edges that limit and define them and give them existence. o Argument 2: A second argument that the zero volume of non-existence does not exist comes from trying to visualize NE as a state (ie, some thing), prompting one to think that it is the human mind, and not NE itself, that is making NE into an existent state. o Counterarguments to Argument 2: - While it may seem, at first, as if the mind, when viewing zero volume, is applying the edge to an edgeless NE in order to be able to visualize this nothingness as a thing or state, this is just an assumption about the process the mind is going through. An equally valid assumption would be that the mind is realizing up front that zero volume is a whole or entirety, understanding that wholes have edges, and then accurately recreating this pre-existing edge of zero volume in the mind's eye. In other words, it is possible that the mind is smarter than we think and is not applying the edge to an edgeless and non-existent zero volume but is just visualizing the preexisting edge of an existent zero volume. - If the mind, which is itself defined as taking up non-zero volume, is what's putting the edge onto and giving "existence" to the zero volume of NE, then isn't the mind also what's putting on the edge and giving "existence" to any volume, including non-zero volumes, that it perceives? This argument, that volumes of any size that are perceived by the mind cannot have edges and cannot exist without the mind, is not only anthropocentric, it also negates the very existence or presence of things external to the mind unless the mind is there to think them. Furthermore, if external-to-the-mind volumes do not exist on their own, how is it that different minds can see the same external volume if that volume doesn't exist independently outside the mind? Finally, if it is the mind that is putting the edge on and giving reality to the zero volume of NE or to any volume, this implies that NE and all volumes are really just subsets of the bigger volume of the mind. That is, the totality of all volume or existence is really just the mind. But, then what puts the edge on and gives existence to the volume of the mind? The volume of the mind itself or a bigger mind? This reasoning could lead to an infinite progression of bigger and bigger minds putting on edges and giving existence to volumes, but, eventually, in order for anything to exist, including a mind, some volume must have an edge and exist independent of any other minds. Even if one considers this volume-that-must-exist to be a mind itself, its existence cannot be due to a bigger mind making it exist. It's existence must be due to some other factor intrinsic to itself. As discussed above, this something else is the wholeness or entiretyness of its volume. Thus, if this largest of all volumes/minds exists because of its wholeness and not because of a larger mind, it seems reasonable that any volume, including zero volume, exists because of its wholeness and not because of a larger mind making it exist. - A reason one might think that it is the mind that is putting the edge on zero volume and making it exist is the view that ideas or concepts, such as that of the state of zero volume or NE, can only exist within the mind. Is this correct? Or, can concepts exist outside the mind? In an accompanying paper (4), an idea was defined as a complete description of something. One usually thinks of ideas as occuring within the mind, but this is not required by this definition. Because any volume is a complete description of itself, any volume, in the mind or outside it, can be considered to be an idea. Also in the accompanying paper (4), ideas without specific location or time stamps were defined as concepts. Some thing, such as an idea, can only have a location and time stamp if it's contained within a set of other things (or ideas), so that it may derive its location and time stamp by its relationship to the other things in the set (the whole amount of this set constitutes a location- and time-coordinate system). Because the zero volume of NE would not be contained within any larger sets (there would be none), it would be a locationless and timeless volume describing itself, and, therefore, fits the definition of a concept. In other words, the zero volume of NE could be defined as a concept, which does not require the mind for its "existence". Indeed, the most accurate description or concept of NE, NE itself, can only occur when all frames, including the mind frame, are not present.Some Properties of an Existent Non-Existence
Some properties of an existent non-existence are discussed here. First off, as mentioned above, the existence of zero volume can only be perceived from a reference frame (ie, observation point) that can see the wholeness, or the edge, of the zero volume. An observer in a reference frame that cannot see this wholeness would continue to say that zero volume does not exist and is, indeed, accurately labeled as non-existence. In other words, the same zero volume can be said to both not exist and to exist depending on the reference frame (ie, observation point) that it is viewed from. Next, is the edge of NE. Like all edges (1), the edge of the zero volume of non-existence has an outside to it. Just by their nature, every edge has an inside and an outside. What is outside the edge of non-existence? By definition, non-existence is zero volume, so the only thing that can be outside the edge of non-existence is "more" zero volume (ie, the lack of volume). This is a very important property of non-existence. The outside of its edge allows the formation of a second instance of zero volume in a new "location", where "location" is defined by the edge of the first zero volume (1). This is similar to how once the concept, or picture, of a ball exists in one's mind, one can also picture an identical ball right next to it. That is, once the concept of a ball exists, there is nothing saying that it has to be in that particular location (where location is defined by the edge of the ball concept or definition). It is also similar to how once the null set exists, the set containing the null set exists, the set containing the set that contains the null exists, and so on (5). A third property of non-existence is its shape. Things that exist have geometric shapes. What shape is an existent non-existence? This is equivalent to asking what shape is the null set (ie, an existent nullness)? The zero volume of non-existence can only be said to exist and, therefore, have a shape from a reference frame (ie, observation point) that can see the wholeness, or edge, of the zero volume. The only reference frame capable of this is the one which views zero volume from outside its edge because from "inside" the edge, there just appears to be zero volume. Next, consider the concept of the edge itself. An edge or boundary is something that indicates completeness. The lowest number of dimensions that will allow complete enclosure of a volume is three. This suggests that edges (and all things that exist) are three-dimensional shapes. Next, what kind of a three-dimensional shape? From outside the edge of non-existence, it would appear as if there is the same distance from edge to edge of the three-dimensional shape from any perspective (ie, zero is the same "distance" as seen from any perspective). The only shape that is the same distance from edge to edge in all directions is the sphere. Therefore, an existent non-existence is a sphere as seen by a hypothetical observer outside the edge of this state of non-existence.Conclusions
The main conclusion of this paper is that zero volume, as seen from a given reference frame (ie, observation point), or what is traditionally called non-existence, meets the definition of a whole and, thus, has an edge which gives it substance and causes it to exist. The existence of zero volume can only be perceived from a reference frame, or observation point, that can see the wholeness, or the edge, of the zero volume. An observer in a reference frame that cannot see this wholeness would continue to say that zero volume is just zero volume, does not exist and is, therefore, accurately labeled as non-existence. Additionally, zero volume exists independent of the mind attempting to visualize it. A long-term question in philosophy has been why is there something, or existence, rather than nothing, or non-existence. The results presented in this paper suggest that this question is not really valid because there is no difference between existence and non-existence. That is, zero volume can be said to both exist and not exist depending on the reference frame from which it is viewed, and both viewpoints are correct. So, the reason why we ask this question and why we've always made the distinction between existence and non-existence may be that we've always viewed the zero volume of non-existence as just zero volume and have never seen it, from a different perspective, as the whole that it is. We have always visualized non-existence from "within" by just seeing its zero volume and deciding that it cannot exist. However, by seeing zero volume as a whole, one can see it from the outside and can see that it has an edge and exists. Even if one doesn't buy the "wholeness of zero volume" argument, another logical route supporting the contention that non-existence must exist is as follows. If one wants to answer why there is existence rather than non-existence, it seems as if two possibilities for pursuing this question are: A. Existence has always been here. This may be true but doesn't explain where existence came from. B. Existence hasn't always been here. If this is true, then before existence was here, non-existence must have been here. Assuming that the goal is determining a reason for why existence is here, only choice B has any explanatory power. Going with B, and assuming that there is a lack of anything other than existence and non-existence (ie, no external mechanism for turning non-existence into existence), it seems logically required that the existence that is here now must be derived from and/or composed of the non-existence that came before it and, indeed, that some aspect of non-existence must cause it to exist. Traditionally, the question of why there is something rather than nothing has been deemed insoluble because it just seems like there is no way that this "logical requirement" can be. That is, there is no way to transform non-existence (nothing) into existence (something). However, as proposed in this paper, there is a way, and it is that the zero volume of non-existence is a whole and has an edge which makes it exist, as seen from a reference frame that can this wholeness, or edge. Overall, while saying that non-existence exists may seem like a less than satisfactory explanation for why there is something rather than nothing, at least, we can explain WHY non-existence exists: because it is a whole and has an edge that gives it substance and existence. As mentioned in an accompanying paper (4), one benefit of the concept that a whole has an edge and exists is that it provides a natural source for the concept of integers. After all, what is an integer? It is a whole extent instead of a fractional extent. The simplest, most basic, whole extent is that of the zero volume of NE. This implies that NE may be the source of the concept of integers. This is consistent with set theory, which suggests that the null set, equivalent to NE, can be the source of all integers (5). Finally, it is suggested that the zero volume of non-existence not only exists but is the most fundamental, most basic, quantum unit, or building block, of our existence. How this zero-volume building block can be turned into the non-zero volume of our univese will be discussed in the following paper (6). References 1. Why Do Things Exist? Proposed Definitions For the Terms "Existence", "Exists", "What Is", and "Location", http://www.geocities.com/roger846/theory.4.html, 2001. 2. Webster's New World Dictionary of American English, Third College Edition, Simon & Schuster, Inc. 1988. 3. Devlin, K. The Joy of Sets: Fundamentals of Contemporary Set Theory, Second Edition, Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. 1993. 4. Ideas and Concepts and Their Relationships to "Real World" Objects and Cosmology, http://www.geocities.com/roger846/theory.3.html, 2001. 5. John von Neumman reference. Sorry I haven't gotten this yet. 6. Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing? A Mechanism For the Formation of a Non-zero Volume Existence from the Zero Volume of Non-Existence. http://www.geocities.com/roger846/theory.6.html, 2002.
Email: [email protected]
Copyright, 2002